Cooperman v. Individual Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
171 F.3d 43 · 1999
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 88 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc. (2009), Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis (2002)
22 federal appellate · 88 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 770 · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. · Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. · Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and give plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“presents no set of facts justifying recovery.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Requirements for securities fraud actions (1) Misleading statements and omissions In any private action arising under this chapter in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant - (A) made an untrue statement of a material fact; or (B) omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading; the complaint shall specify" each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. (2) Required state of mind In any private action arising, under this chapter in which the plaintiff may recover money damages only on proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of mind, the complaint shall, with respect to each act or omission alleged to violate this chapter, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.”
2 later decisions 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.