Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat’s Empirical Analysis
386 F.2d 5 · 1967
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,714 Edwin J. Herpich v. Robert H. Wallace, Jack E. Love (1970), Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton (1970)
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. · John B. Janigan v. Frederick B. Taylor · National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc. · Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The concept of due diligence is not imprisoned within the frame of a rigid standard; it is protean in application. A fraud which is flagrant and widely publicized may require the defrauded party to make immediate inquiry. On the other hand, one artfully concealed or convincingly practiced upon its victim may justify much greater inactivity. The presence of a fiduciary relationship or evidence of fraudulent concealment bears heavily on the issue of due diligence.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . [T]he district court recognized that either of the two limitation periods could apply but expressed a preference for the former. Whether the present action is characterized as one upon a liability created by statute, on the one hand, or one for relief on the ground of fraud, on the other, is really immaterial for the end result would be the same. It is important, however, to note, though gratuitously, that conceptually the gravamen of an action brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is fraud and that a state statute of limitations should not be permitted to narrow the filing time available under a broadly remedial federal act to a period less than the one available for commencing a similar common-law action.” 386 F.2d at 8 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the aggrieved party has either knowledge of the violation or notice of facts which, in the exercise of due diligence, would have led to actual knowledge”
4 later decisions 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.