Hart v. Internet Wire, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · United Families of America v. Kendrick · In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation · United Families of America v. Kendrick
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An allegation ‘that a defendant merely ought to have known is not sufficient to allege recklessness.' ”) (citation omitted); Hart v. Internet Wire, Inc., 145 F.Supp.2d 360, 368 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“that a defendant merely ought to have known is not sufficient to allege recklessness. Rather, to withstand a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must detail specific contemporaneous data or information known to the defendants that was inconsistent with the representation in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is . . . unfair to use professionals' self-imposed standards, which may exceed industry standards, against them to try to prove fraud. This violates public policy which encourages the highest standards, in order to protect the public.”
1 later decision 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.