Yung v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
432 F.3d 142 · 2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably In Re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation (2007), In Re Scottish Re Group Securities Litigation (2007)
3 federal appellate · 11 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. · Rombach v. Chang · Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris · Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant is a statutory seller; (2) the sale was effectuated by means of a prospectus or oral communication; and (3) the prospectus or oral communication included an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstance under which they were made, not misleading.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A document is integral to the complaint where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In case any part of the registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission) may, either at law or in equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue— (1) every person who signed the registration statement; (2) every person who was a director of (or person performing similar functions) or partner in, the issuer at the time of the filing of the part of the registration statement with respect to which his liability is asserted ....”
1 later decision 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.