Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 FAPPX 438 - Saxe v. Dlusky

Saxe v. Dlusky’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
June 2014
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill

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

  1. “Litigation.” The title of the letter—Audit of Sequent, Inc.’s Flexible Benefits Plan—was not misleading because the investigation, at that time, involved only Sequent’s Plan. 17 . Escue’s fifth and sixth claims assert fraud claims for relief under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1943, 15 U.S.C. § 78 (j)(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5(b), seeking rescission or, alternatively, money damages.”
    1 later decision 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.