Rubinstein v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 160 · 1994
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 217 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Janas v. McCracken (1999), Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. (1996)
75 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · 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 217 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he 'bespeaks caution' doctrine merely reflects the unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). The elements of a Section 10b-5 civil liability claim are well established: The plaintiff must prove (1) a misstatement or omission (2) of material fact (3) occurring in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, that (4) was made with scienter and (5) upon which the plaintiff justifiably relied, (6) and that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160 , 166 (5th Cir.1994). 41 Wyshak argues that he should not have been found liable under federal securities law because (1) the notes given as security for the funds advanced by TCL were not”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Trust Company of Louisiana v. N.N.P. Inc. L.C.E. International Incorporated Lawrence R. Leal William M. Moore Reliance Capital Associates David Lloyd Grant Curtis Johnson & Gibbs Daniel M. Matheson, III M. Sheppard Strong Dennis A. Jamieson James F. Crank, and Robert H. Wyshak Robert H. Wyshak & Associates · 183 F. Supp. 2d 860 - In Re Securities Litigation BMC Software, Inc.“only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.”
7 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.