Daou Systems Inc v. V W’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 district · 2 state decisions

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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. A.V. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist. · Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. Harris

2. “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 311 F. Supp. 3d 1130 - Yan Guo v. Kyani, Inc. · 434 F. Supp. 2d 815 - Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Adecco S.A.

3. ““Plaintiffs here describe the confidential witnesses with a large degree of specificity. Plaintiffs number each witness and describe his or her job description and responsibilities. In some instances, plaintiffs provide the witnesses’ exact title and to which Daou executive the witness reported. For example, plaintiffs describe Confidential Witness # 6 as follows: ‘Confidential Witness # 6 (“CW6”) is a former Daou executive who worked in the Finance Department. CW6 dealt with audit issues, Security and Exchange (“SEC”) reporting and budget matters. As such, CW6 was familiar with Daou’s process of collecting project cost information. CW6 reported to defendant McGee.’ Similarly, plaintiffs describe Confidential Witness # 9 as follows: ‘Confidential Witness 9 (“CW9”) is a former Daou Regional Vice President of Sales. As Vice President of Sales, CW9 was responsible for reporting weekly or bi-weekly sales information, such as sales status/backlog and forecast/pipeline information; to Daou’s Vice Presidents and corporate officers.’ Given the specificity of plaintiffs’ descriptions of their confidential witnesses, we hold that plaintiffs have sufficiently met the PSLRA’s requirements for confidential witnesses.” Daou, 411 F.3d at 1016 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc. · 388 F. Supp. 2d 932 - City of Austin Police Retirement System v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.