Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 788 · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Christensen v. Harris County · Hebert v. Brown · Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. · Branch v. Tunnell · Janas v. McCracken
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]ocuments crucial to the plaintiffs claims but not explicitly incorporated in a complaint can be noticed in order to prevent a plaintiff from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their claims are based.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Channel stuffing is the oversupply of distributors in one quarter to artificially inflate sales, which will then drop in the next quarter as the distributors no longer make orders while they deplete their excess supply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts in this district have almost uniformly rejected the idea that allegations of channel stuffing are sufficient to plead a securities fraud violation.”
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.