McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP’s Empirical Analysis
494 F.3d 418 · 2007
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Hartman v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. (2008), Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc. (2009)
15 federal appellate · 23 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. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a material misrepresentation (or omission); (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance, often referred to in cases involving public securities markets (fraud-on-the-market cases) as “transaction causation”; (5) economic loss; and (6) “loss causation,” i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plaintiff can satisfy loss causation by showing that 'the defendant misrepresented or omitted the very facts that were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's economic loss.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he moving party must show that the non-moving party has failed to establish one or more essential elements of its case on which the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial.”
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.