Goldstein’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Dynegy, Inc. (2004), 503 F. Supp. 2d 25 - Evergreen Equity Trust v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (2007)
2 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
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Carol Novak v. Sally Frame · Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor · Lawrence Greebel Richard Crane Brian Robinson John Ann Somers v. Ftp Software Inc
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) specify ... each statement alleged to have been misleading, i.e., contended to be fraudulent; (2) identify the speaker; (3) state when and where the statement was made; (4) plead with particularity the contents of the false representations; (5) plead with particularity what the person making the misrepresentation obtained thereby; and (6) explain the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, i.e., why the statement is fraudulent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Severe recklessness] is limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he[ ] allegations fail to reach the required standard. Plaintiffs point to no allegations that the defendants knew about the [problems at issue in the suit], only that they should have known based on their corporate positions within the company .... The plaintiffs’ allegations regarding non-specific internal reports aré also inadequate. Ah unsupported general claim about ⅛⅛ existence of confidential corporate reports that reveal information contrary to reported accounts is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Such allegations must have corroborating details regarding the contents of allegedly contrary reports, then-authors and recipients.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.