29 F. Supp. 2d 1213 - Schaffer v. Evolving Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21e of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Neitzke v. Williams · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who ... offers or sells a security ... by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading ... and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable ... to the person purchasing such security from him....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Forward-looking representations are ... considered immaterial when the defendant has provided the investing public with sufficiently specific risk disclosures or other cautionary statements concerning the subject matter of the statements at issue to nullify any potentially misleading effect.... However, not every risk disclosure will be sufficient to immunize statements relating to the disclosure; rather, “the cautionary statements must be substantive and tailored to the specific future projections, estimates or opinions ... which the plaintiffs challenge.” At bottom, the “bespeaks caution” doctrine stands for the “unremarkable proposition that statements must be analyzed in context” when determining whether or not they are materially misleading.”
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.