365 F. Supp. 2d 838 - Wuliger v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1658
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Hishon v. King & Spalding · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No action for the recovery of the purchase price [based on a violation of the Ohio securities laws], and no other action for any recovery based upon or arising out of a sale or contract for sale made in violation of [the Ohio securities laws], shall be brought more than two years after the plaintiff knew, or had reason to know, of-the facts by reason of which the actions of the person or director were unlawful, or more than four years from the date of such sale or contract for sale, whichever is the shorter period.”
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.