Dudek v. Prudential Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 875 · 2002
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (2005), Falkowski v. Imation Corp. (2002)
27 federal appellate · 9 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · Schwartz v. Pennsylvania · Feist v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. · Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging— (A) a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security; or (B) that the defendant used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff may not avoid federal question jurisdiction and the preemption of state law claims by artfully concealing the federal question in an otherwise well-pleaded complaint under state law”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, plaintiffs argue the district court abused its discretion in denying them leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs first raised this issue at the end of their brief to the district court on the removal and preemption issues, stating that “if defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, plaintiffsf] should be permitted to file an amended complaint.” Plaintiffs did not include a proposed amended pleading, as Local Rule 15.1 of the Northern District of Iowa requires. Nor did plaintiffs describe what changes they would make to avoid SLUSA preemption, or what non-futile federal causes of action they would seek to assert. In these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
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.