Bowe v. Polymedica Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
432 F.3d 1 · 2005
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 53 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. (2006), In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation (2009)
24 federal appellate · 53 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of how much evidence ... is necessary for a court to accept the [theory of reliance] at the class certification stage is therefore one of degree. District courts must draw these lines sensibly .... We have no illusions that this line-drawing is easy. Knowing the high stakes in the class-certification decision, the parties will try to move the court in different directions, with plaintiffs arguing for less evidence ... and defendants for more ... the district court must evaluate the plaintiffs evidence ... critically without allowing the defendant to turn the class certification proceeding into an unwieldy trial on the merits.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“relieves the plaintiff of the burden of proving individualized reliance on a defendant’s misstatement, by permitting a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff relied on the 'integrity of the market price’ which reflected that misstatement.” In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1 , 7 (1st Cir.2005) (discussing Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 , 108 S.Ct. 978 , 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988)). While reliance”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the prerequisites established by Rule 23 before certifying a class.”
2 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.