Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 F. Supp. 2d 871 - In Re First Union Corp. Securities Litigation

128 F. Supp. 2d 871 - In Re First Union Corp. Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp. (2005), In Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Lit. (2003)

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

400200120102020decided

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

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · In re Disbarment of Johnson · Gozlon-Peretz 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. “plaintiffs must plead specific facts concerning, for example, when each defendant or other corporate officer learned that a statement was false, how that defendant learned that the statement was false, and the particular document or other source of information from which the defendant came to know that the statement was false.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “documents or articles cited in the complaint, SEC filings, press releases, stock price tables, and other material on which the plaintiff's allegations necessarily rely.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.