Cooper v. Pickett’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 616 · 1997
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 37 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Herman Resnick v. Warden Hayes Lt. Ernst Officer Myers (Dho) Counselor Aune Officer Wade (2000), Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA (2003)
26 federal appellate · 37 district · 2 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
Relies on Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Voinovich v. Quilter · DiLeo v. Ernst & Young · California Architectural Building Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc. · Branch v. Tunnell
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 9(b) requires particularized allegations of the circumstances constituting fraud. The time, place and content of an alleged misrepresentation may identify the statement or the omission complained of, but these circumstances do not “constitute” fraud. The statement in question must be false to be fraudulent. Accordingly, our cases have consistently required that circumstances indicating falseness be set forth.... [W]e [have] observed that plaintiff must include statements regarding the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities, and that “mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” ... The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false. In other words, the plaintiff must set forth an explanation as to why the statement or omission complained of was false or misleading.... In certain cases, to be sure, the requisite particularity might be supplied with great simplicity.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the who, what, when, where, and how that would suggest fraud.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The absence of § 10(b) aiding and abetting liability does not mean that secondary actors in the securities markets are always free from liability under the securities Acts. Any person or entity, including a lawyer, accountant, or bank, who employs a manipulative device or makes a material misstatement (or omission) on which a purchaser or seller of securities relies may be liable as a primary violator under 10b-5, assuming all of the requirements for primary liability under Rule 10b-5 are met. In any complex securities fraud, moreover, there are likely to be multiple violators....”
2 later decisions 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.