Vms Securities Litigation Vms Limited Partnership Securities Litigation v. Prudential Securities Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.3d 1317 · 1996
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson (2002), Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp. (2000)
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · New Jersey v. New York · United States v. New York Telephone Co.
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he exercise of authority under the Ml Writs Act is not appropriate where a district court is ‘determining simply the preclusive effect of a prior final judgment on claims or issues expected to be raised in subsequent collateral proceedings’ (citation omitted). Rather, a district court’s assumption of removal jurisdiction under the Act is proper, if at all, only ‘to enforce [the court’s] ongoing orders against relitigation and to guard the integrity of its prior rulings over which it has expressly retained jurisdiction.’”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review when a district court interprets its own order. . . . Nonetheless, in applying the abuse of discretion standard, we do not give equal deference to every aspect of a court's decision. The abuse of discretion standard is used to evaluate the . . . court's application of the facts to the appropriate legal standard, and the factual findings and legal conclusions underlying such decisions are evaluated under the clearly erroneous and de novo standards, respect[ively].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] district court, in exceptional circumstances, [to] use its All Writs authority to remove an otherwise unremovable state court case in order to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued.”
2 later decisions 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.