Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 FRD 425 - Shields v. Keating

Shields v. Keating’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
4
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 962 F. Supp. 450 - In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation (1997), First Alliance Mortgage Company v. C (2006)

2 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions

1601992200020102020decided

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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.

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

  1. “"The center of gravity of the fraud transcends the specific details of oral communications.... [The alleged fraud [is] not conceived or perpetrated by the [defendant's representatives] themselves. Rather, they [are] merely conduits of information communicated to them by or with the help of Defendants. [[Image here]] The exact wording of the oral misrepresentations, therefore, is not the predominant issue. It is the underlying scheme which demands attention. Each plaintiff is similarly situated with respect to it, and it would be folly to force each bond purchaser to prove the nucleus of the alleged fraud again and again."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a showing that the sales presentations were uniformly patterned on a known model provides certitude that material misrepresentations were a causative factor in each plaintiffs’ decision. Thus, a class action may be maintained where plaintiffs can establish that the sales agents’ representations did not vary in material respects.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]lthough the representations made to the bond purchasers in this case were not identical, they were sufficiently uniform to warrant class treatment.”
    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.