[6] In 1698, the doctrine was mentioned in dicta by Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt in the English case of Jones v. Hart, 2 Salk 441, 90 Eng.
[6] In 1916, the British attorney Thomas Baty wrote that the doctrine, which he called a "deep-pocket theory", was "derived from an inconsiderate use of precedents and a blind reliance on the slightest word of an eminent judge, and from the mistaken notion that his flights of imagination ... were actual decided cases".
[citation needed] In US securities law cases in which respondeat superior has been considered in which the company was not a knowing participant in the employee's fraud, the results have been mixed.
[7] In O'Brien v. Dean Witter Reynolds (D. Ariz 1984), the court, emphasizing the requirement of knowing participation, stated that an employee's knowledge could not be imputed to the employer.
[7] In Parnes v. Heinold Commodities (N.D. Ill. 1983), the court described the use of respondeat superior as "bizarre" and noted that the firm itself had been victimized by its unscrupulous employee.
[7] Furthermore, courts such as the Southern District of New York have held that respondeat superior liability is not available under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.
[8][9][10] Similarly, Thomas Hazen wrote in Treatise on the Law of Securities Regulation (2005), "Respondeat superior... do[es] not apply to sanctions for illegal trading on inside information.
"[11] As Robert Anello wrote in Forbes in 2014, "Analysis of the corporate mens rea is, by definition, contrived and one with which federal courts have struggled.