274 F. Supp. 2d 163 - Scritchfield v. Paolo’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2022
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc. · Carol Novak v. Sally Frame · Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a company's statements that it is `premier,' `dominant,' or `leading' must not be assessed in a vacuum (i.e., by plucking the statements out of their context to determine whether the words, taken per se, are sufficiently `vague' so as to constitute puffery”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. Joseph N. Jaggers Robert W. Howard Shonn D. Stahlecker Charles D. Davison S. Wil Vanloh, Jr. Blake A. Webster Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Goldman, Sachs & Co. RBC Capital Markets, LLC Wells Fargo Securities, LLC UBS Securities LLC Keybanc Capital Markets, Inc. ABN AMRO Securities (USA) LLC Fifth Third Securities, Inc. Petrie Partners Securities, LLC Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. BMO Capital Markets Corp. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Evercore Group L.L.C. and Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. v. Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated · City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp.“are properly interpreted only by reference to the relevant circumstances that underlie their meaning.”
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.