283 F. Supp. 643 - Escott v. BarChris Construction Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (1976), Lanza v. Drexel & Co. (1973)
36 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Stevens v. Marks · Davis v. United States · Rosenberg v. United States
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““must be construed to require more effort on the part of the underwriters than the mere accurate reporting in the prospectus of ‘data presented’ to them by the company. It should make no difference that this data is elicited by questions addressed to the company officer by the underwriters, or that the underwriters at the time believe that the company’s officers are truthful and reliable. In order to make the underwriters’ participation in this enterprise of any value to the investors, the underwriters must make some reasonable attempt to verify the data submitted to them. They may not rely solely on the company’s officers or on the company’s counsel.” 283 F.Supp. 697 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is claimed that a lawyer is entitled to rely on the statements of his client and that to require him to verify their accuracy would set an unreasonably high standard. This is too broad a generalization. It is all a matter of degree. To require an audit would obviously be unreasonable. On the other hand, to require a check of matters easily verifiable is not unreasonable. Even honest clients can make mistakes. The statute imposes liability for untrue statements regardless of whether they are intentionally untrue. The way to prevent mistakes is to test oral information by examining the original written record. “There were things which Grant could readily have checked which he did not check. For example, he was unaware of the provisions of the agreements between BarChris and Talcott. He never read them.” BarChris, supra, 283 F.Supp. at 690 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * He did not spend an adequate amount of time on a task of this magnitude. Most important of all, he was too easily satisfied with glib answers to his inquiries. “ * * * there were enough danger signals in the materials which he did examine to require some further investigation on his part. Generally accepted accounting standards required such further investigation under these circumstances. It is not always sufficient merely to ask questions.””
2 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.