Nemeroff v. Abelson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co. · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The action was commenced in good faith. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s award to the publishing defendants of $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses as assessed against appellants Nemeroff and Hale and Dorr; and we affirm the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the investor defendants. (2) We affirm the district court’s award of costs under Rule 54(d) to the publishing defendants and the investor defendants. (3) We remand to the district court for a determination of the propriety of appellants’ conduct of the litigation. (4) We order that taxation of costs in this Court in connection with the instant appeal and cross-appeal shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of our remand to the district court and any ensuing appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nemeroff v. Abelson“Defendant, Litt Ratner & Co. having moved this Court pursuant to § 9(c) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the equitable powers of this Court for an order taxing costs against plaintiff Leonard Weinbaum, including attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the action herein, . . . and it appearing to the Court that plaintiff Leonard Weinbaum brought and maintained this action willfully, maliciously, vexatiously, in bad faith, and patently without merit”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiff and his broker, among others, pressured counsel into filing this baseless lawsuit, even though they and counsel knew or should have known that the allegations were not susceptible of proof sufficient in a court of law. Counsel, however, was under a professional obligation to resist his client’s insistence that this lawsuit be brought, but did not.” 469 F.Supp. at 642 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nemeroff v. Abelson
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.