In re Adams Golf, Inc. Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.3d 267 · 2004
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP (2010), Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc. (2011)
25 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 26 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. · In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation · Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a private action for damages may be brought “by any person acquiring such security” if a registration statement, as of its effective date: (1) “contained an untrue statement of material fact”; (2) “omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein”; or (3) omitted to state a material fact “necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs contend that the applicable standard of review of futility determinations is de novo, relying upon our decision in [In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir.1997)], as adopting the standard employed by several of our sister courts of appeals, but we do need read Burlington as having done so.... Accordingly, we decline the plaintiffs’ invitation to chart a new course and consider the District Court’s finding of futility for abuse of discretion.”
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.