City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.3d 651 · 2005
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. (2007), Winer Family Trust v. Queen (2007)
36 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 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 Conley v. Gibson · Neitzke v. Williams · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Singleton v. Wulff
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) insider trading at a suspicious time or in an unusual amount; (2) divergence between internal reports and external statements on the same subject; (3) closeness in time of an allegedly fraudulent statement or omission and the later disclosure of inconsistent information; (4) evidence of bribery by a top company official; (5) existence of an ancillary lawsuit charging fraud by a company and the company’s quick settlement of that suit; (6) disregard of the most current factual information before making statements; (7) disclosure of accounting information in such a way that its negative implications could only be understood by someone with a high degree of sophistication; (8) the personal interest of certain directors in not informing disinterested directors of an impending sale of stock; and (9) the self-interested motivation of defendants in the form of saving their salaries or jobs.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]here is no general duty on the part of a company to provide the public with all material information.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]o state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or under SEC Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a misrepresentation or omission; (2) of a material fact that the defendant had a duty to disclose; (3) made with scienter; (4) justifiably relied on by plaintiffs; and (5) proximately causing them injury.”
3 later decisions 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.