Parnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 district · 4 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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “such matters as the time, place and contents of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re: K-Tel International, Inc. Securities Litigation Pasquale Migliaccio Creative Care Corporation Glen Reudolph Morton Kahn David Rea Henry Werres Claude Seymour Igal Mammon Neil Litton, Dr. Jerry Booth Joseph Erlich Gary Ewin Tim Murchison Stanford D. Williams Rev. R.G. Moore Murray N. Johnson Elizabeth Alpert Arthur Alves Societe Financiere Privee and Ravi Anand, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. K-Tel International, Inc. Philip Kives Lawrence Kives, Securities and Exchange Commission, Amicus on Behalf Of · 382 F. Supp. 2d 1112 - Reding v. Goldman Sachs & Co.

2. “[W]hen an offering document’s forecasts, opinions or projections are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, the forward-looking statements will not form the basis for a securities fraud claim if those statements did not affect the “total mix” of information the document provided investors. In other words, cautionary language, if sufficient, renders the alleged omissions or misrepresentations immaterial as a matter of law.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 437 F. Supp. 2d 941 - Yellen v. Hake · 883 F. Supp. 2d 835 - Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co.

3. “some statements are so vague and such obvious hyperbole that no reasonable investor would rely upon them. “The role of the materiality requirement is not to attribute to investors a childlike simplicity but rather to determine whether a reasonable investor would have considered the omitted information significant at the time.” [Thus,] “soft, puffing statements generally lack materiality because the market price of a share is not inflated by vague statements predicting growth. No reasonable investor would rely on these statements, and they are certainly not specific enough to perpetrate a fraud on the market.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation · 953 So. 2d 1180 - Blackmon v. Nexity Financial Corp.