In Re Peerless Systems, Corp. Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Neitzke v. Williams · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Branch v. Tunnell · Janas v. McCracken
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In re McKesson, 126 F.Supp.2d at 1273 (quoting Greebel, 194 F.3d at 204) (alteration in McKesson ). Plaintiffs need not allege each of those particular details, see Greebel, 194 F.3d at 204, but they must allege enough information so that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the complaint must describe the violations with sufficient particularity; `a general allegation that the practices at issue resulted in a false report of company earnings is not a sufficiently particular claim of misrepresentation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) ("[W]hen significant GAAP violations are described with particularity in the complaint, they may provide powerful indirect evidence of scienter. After all, books do not cook themselves.”
2 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.