385 F. Supp. 2d 697 - Davis v. SPSS, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[hjaving no claim of its own based on the post-purchase statements, Roots would not be a proper representative of a class of persons who bought Lands’ End stock after the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent post-July 25, 1989 statements. Roots therefore cannot defeat dismissal by purporting to represent the interests of post-July 25,1989 purchasers.”
1 later decision 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.