Simpson v. Aol Time Warner Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a defendant's conduct or role in an illegitimate transaction has the principal purpose and effect of creating a false appearance of fact in the furtherance of a scheme to defraud, then the defendant is using or employing a deceptive device within the meaning of § 10(b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] plaintiff may be presumed to have relied on th[e] scheme to defraud if a misrepresentation, which necessarily resulted from the scheme and the defendant's conduct therein, was disseminated into an efficient market and was reflected in the market price.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is not enough that a transaction in which the defendant was involved had a deceptive purpose and effect; the defendant's own conduct contributing to the transaction or overall scheme must have had a deceptive purpose and effect.”
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.