Hevesi’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. (2006), In Re Parmalat Securities Litigation (2005)
12 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 Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation v. Usa · Harsco Corporation v. Segui Mhc Dkm-Mlp & II Lp · Kenneth Newton · 294 F. Supp. 2d 431 - In Re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in the PSLRA indicates that district courts must choose a lead plaintiff with standing to sue on every available cause of action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“cobble together a lead plaintiff group that has standing to sue on all possible causes of action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private action arising under this Act is the person or persons that— (aa) has either filed a complaint or made a motion in response to a notice ...; (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.