Kirby v. Cullinet Software, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
29 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Grace v. Perception Technology Corp. (1989), 126 Cal. App. 4th 1253 - Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005)
29 district · 5 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
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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Blackie v. Barrack · Roeder v. Alpha Industries, 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendants also claim that the named plaintiffs are atypical at least in regard to purchasers relying on the third misstatement, because all the proposed representatives purchased before the alleged misstatement ... The court holds the plaintiffs’ claims are typical of later purchasers where the basis of the class claim is the type of common course of conduct alleged in the instant case.”
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.