Decker v. Glenfed, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
42 F.3d 1541 · 1994
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 76 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 454 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. (2007), In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation (1997)
58 federal appellate · 76 district · 3 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. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, 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 454 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 9(b) requires particularized allegations of the circumstances constituting fraud. The time, place and content of an alleged misrepresentation may identify the statement or the omission complained of, but these circumstances do not “constitute” fraud. The statement in question must be false to be fraudulent. Accordingly, our cases have consistently required that circumstances indicating falseness be set forth.... [W]e [have] observed that plaintiff must include statements regarding the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities, and that “mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” ... The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false. In other words, the plaintiff must set forth an explanation as to why the statement or omission complained of was false or misleading.... In certain cases, to be sure, the requisite particularity might be supplied with great simplicity.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
20 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.