Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 FRD 269 - Dubin v. Miller

Dubin v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Culver v. City of Milwaukee (2002), Drennen v. PNC Bank National Ass'n (2010)

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

110199020002010decided

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)

Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.

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

  1. “Plaintiff's personal relationship with former director Dale Tower casts a further cloud upon plaintiff's suitability to fulfill his fiduciary role. Tower was a director for thirteen months during the class period, yet he has not been named as a defendant.... The omission to sue a potential defendant cannot but prejudice the class.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “While the authorities cited by plaintiff do stand for the proposition that a class plaintiff need not join every possible defendant, plaintiff is obligated to supply a persuasive reason for the non-joinder.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “so severely undermining [of his] credibility that a fact finder might reasonably focus on [his] credibility, to the detriment of the absent class members' claims.”
    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.