DeMaria v. Andersen’s Empirical Analysis
318 F.3d 170 · 2003
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. (2006), Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp. (2003)
21 federal appellate · 4 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Auer v. Robbins
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the defendant proves that any portion or all of such damages represents other than the depreciation in value of such security resulting from such part of the registration statement, with respect to which his liability is asserted, not being true or omitting to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, such portion of or all such damages shall not be recoverable.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Section] 11 provides a cause of action for `any person acquiring' a security issued pursuant to a materially false registration statement unless the purchaser knew about the false statement at the time of acquisition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“we read it as a whole. Our inquiry does not focus on whether particular statements, taken separately, were literally true, but whether defendants’ representations, taken together and in context, would have misled a reasonable investor about the nature of the securities. As we have explained, a prospectus will violate federal securities laws if it does not disclose material objective factual matters, or buries those matters beneath other information, or treats them cavalierly.”
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.