Wilson v. Bernstock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 district ·

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a plaintiff must state facts that, if true, would compel or forcefully suggest that a given defendant acted `with the required state of mind. A plaintiff need not disprove every conceivable rationale a defendant might put forward to explain why a particular statement was made. However, if the facts alleged do not exclude other plausible explanations that would undercut a plaintiffs circumstantial evidence of scienter, then that plaintiffs facts cannot be fairly said to raise a "strong inference" that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 227 F. Supp. 2d 263 - Nappier v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP

2. “the courts have been very reluctant to permit [plaintiffs to proceed on a “theory of fraud by hindsight” because corporate officials “are only responsible for revealing those material facts reasonably available to them” at the time of the alleged false or misleading statement or omission.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In Re Intelligroup Securities Litigation

3. “While we will not infer fraudulent intent from the mere fact that some officers sold stock, `if the stock sales were unusual in scope or timing, they may support an inference of scienter.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 334 F. Supp. 2d 637 - In Re Suprema Specialities, Inc. Securities Litigation