Berry v. Valence Technology, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 699 · 1999
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor (2000), Merck & Co. v. Reynolds (2010)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · United States v. O'Hagan · Topalian v. Ehrman · Margolis v. Ryan
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A press article's general skepticism about a company's future prospects is not sufficient to excite inquiry into the specific possibility of fraud.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“discovered, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered, the alleged fraud,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“for a press article to put shareholders on inquiry notice, there must be some reasonable nexus between the allegations made in the article and the nature of the action subsequently brought.”
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.