11 F. Supp. 2d 204 - Feiner v. SS & C TECHNOLOGIES’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2016
1 district ·
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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 26 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Goldman v. Belden · Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In case any part of the registration statement ... contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring such security [may] sue (1) every person who signed such registration statement [or] (2) every person who was a director of ... the issuer at the time of the filing....”
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.