Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 357 FSUPP 255 - Blakely v. Lisac

Blakely v. Lisac’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2002

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

401972198019902000decided

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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Coates v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · Brady v. United States · Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Kolousek is the only named plaintiff who purchased stock in reliance on the offering prospectus. Defendants challenge him as an adequate representative for any class of stockholders. Kolousek bought 1,000 shares on the original offering for $1,000. Later, he sold 400 shares for $1,700. Even though he retained 600 shares which became worthless, he made a net profit of $700. Defendants assert that it would be “bad policy” to permit an individual to sue in a representative capacity under Rule 10b-5 when he has made an overall profit on the stock which he claims he was fraudulently induced to buy. I disagree. sfc * % * * * [T]here is nothing in his position which would make his interest antagonistic to the remaining members of the class.”
    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.