Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 F. Supp. 2d 398 - In Re Kidder Peabody Securities Litigation

10 F. Supp. 2d 398 - In Re Kidder Peabody Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
October 2014
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co. (2000), City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp. (2005)

9 federal appellate · 9 district ·

330199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`cannot escape liability simply because it carried out its alleged fraud through the public statements of third parties'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[R]eckless disregard of the truth satisfies the scienter requirements of [the anti-fraud provisions] when the defendant deliberately failed to acquire the information that would have indicated to her that her statements were false or misleading.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[P]laintiffs must demonstrate that defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of their statements and with an intent to deceive investors ... or with such recklessness that an intent to deceive may be inferred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.