Basic Inc. v. Levinson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1,448 federal appellate · 1,065 district · 189 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6,458 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005), Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994)
1,448 federal appellate · 1,065 district · 189 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLevinson v. Basic Inc. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78R (§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Carnegie v. United States · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
Cited together with TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · 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 6,458 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available.”
187 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fraud on the market theory is based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business .... Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements .... The causal connection between the defendants’ fraud and the plaintiffs’ purchase of stock in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance on misrepresentations.”
81 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange ... [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
58 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.