Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 F.3d 480 - Kline

Kline’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

32 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Kenneth Newton (2001), Parnes

32 district · 2 state decisions

370199020002010decided

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

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K

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

  1. “[Wjhen an offering document’s forecasts, opinions or projections are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, the forward-looking statements will not form the basis for a securities fraud claim if those statements did not affect the “total mix” of information the document provided investors. In other words, cautionary language, if sufficient, renders the alleged omissions or misrepresentations immaterial as a matter of law.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[t]he cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions in the prospectus which the plaintiffs challenge.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “relate directly to that by which plaintiffs claim to have been misled.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.