Binder v. Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.3d 649 · 1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and held that the Affiliated Ute presumption was unavailable. We agree with the district court's characterization of Binder's action. Binder's complaint contains both allegations of omissions and misrepresentations, and at the very least, must be characterized, as the district court noted, as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We reject Binder's contentions. He has not demonstrated how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118 , 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1998). Similarly, the judge stated that, in deciding to grant summary judgment, he”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the plaintiff must show reliance, whereas the plaintiff in a pure omissions case may rely on the presumption); Kramas, 672 F.2d at 769 n.2 (noting that whether the presumption applies to misrepresentations had already been”
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.