Cooper v. Pickett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “2 75 Neubronner does not require more. As we noted in GlenFed I, the allegations of Rule 10b-5 violations in Neubronner were dismissed not because knowledge was not specifically alleged but because the complaint attributed no false statements to the defendant. GlenFed I, 42 F.3d at 1546 n. 6 (citing Neubronner, 6 F.3d at 673 ). The language that the underwriters quote is from the court's discussion of insider trading, not false statements. The complaint did not plead any trading at all, nor did it specify what nonpublic information the defendant had to give him an inside edge; it therefore”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooper v. Pickett

2. “It shall be unlawful for any person directly "or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce !.. (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material "fact necessary in order -to make the- statements made, in the light of the circumstances- under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 993 F. Supp. 1314 - Epstein v. Itron, Inc.

3. “ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction 18 The complaint names as individual defendants Theodor J. Kundtz, a securities analyst employed by Lehman Brothers, and Robert P. Anastasi, a securities analyst employed by Robinson-Humphrey. Neither of these two defendants was served, and neither appeared in court. Plaintiffs agreed with the two analysts to dismiss the claims against them without prejudice, subject to revival based on the outcome of an appeal. Merisel argues that because the analysts were not included in the district court's grant of dismissal as to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooper v. Pickett