Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 FRD 190 - Dubowski v. Ash

Dubowski v. Ash’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp. (2001), 710 F. Supp. 1407 - County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co. (1989)

12 district · 1 state decisions

1901985199020002010decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Sosna v. Iowa · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Sullivan 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff sold stock during the class period does not in itself disqualify him from acting as a class representative. (Citations omitted.) Rather, the determination of when a plaintiff sold his stock essentially relates to the issue of damages. It is well-established that individual questions with respect to damages will not defeat class certification or render a proposed representative inadequate unless that issue creates a conflict which goes to the heart of the lawsuit. (Citations omitted.)”
    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.