Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.3d 1302 - Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc.

Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

144 F.3d 1302 · 1998

Citation profile

165
cited by 165 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 98 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably City of Philadelphia Ronald Goldstein v. Fleming Companies Inc (2001), 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 - In Re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation (2000)

14 federal appellate · 98 district · 1 state decisions

1230199820002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Pinter v. Dahl · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. · Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.

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

  1. “Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e conclude that the plaintiffs have pled facts supporting the allegation that [Defendant] Hall was a control person. He was the Chairman, President, and CEO of Kinder-Morgan during the rele vant period. As President and CEO, Hall would have possessed the ultimate management authority of the corporation on a daily basis. There were no managers higher than Hall. He thus clearly possessed “the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of [Kinder-Morgan].” Hall also had direct control over McKenzie, his chief financial officer and an alleged primary violator of Rule 10b-5.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]o state a prima facie case of control person liability, the plaintiff must establish (1) a primary violation of the securities laws and (2) 'control' over the primary violator by the alleged controlling person.”
    4 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.