White v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The proper analysis, as we see it, is not only to focus on the duty of the defendant, but to allow a flexible standard to meet the varied factual contexts without inhibiting the standard with traditional fault concepts which tend to cloud rather than clarify. By adopting such a duty analysis, we avoid the confusion that arises from classifying the defendants as primary and secondary, or from classifying the transactions as direct and indirect. This flexible approach, as compared to the compartmentalized approach, does away with the necessity of creating a separate pigeonhole for each defendant whose involvement in the transaction in question may not fit nicely into one of the previously defined classes.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 610 F. Supp. 2d 600 - In Re Enron Corp. Secur., Deriv. &" Erisa" Lit. · 601 F. Supp. 983 - Bradshaw v. Van Houten

2. ““. . . the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant’s access to the information as compared to the plaintiff’s access, the benefit that the defendant derives from the relationship, the defendant’s awareness of whether the plaintiff was relying upon their relationship in making his investment decisions and the defendant’s activity in initiating the securities transaction in question.” Id. at 735-736 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Briskin v. Ernst & Ernst · 571 F. Supp. 642 - Wright v. Schock

3. “(1) the relationship of defendant to plaintiff; (2) defendant's access to the information as compared to that of plaintiff; (3) defendant’s benefit derived from the relationship; (4) defendant’s awareness of whether plaintiff was relying on their relationship in making his or her investment decisions; and (5) defendant’s activity in initiating the transaction in question.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp. · Kay Hollinger Richard Llewelyn Jones Edward E. Nissen Judy D'Arcy K-Judy, Ltd. v. Titan Capital Corp. Emil Wilkowski Painter Financial Group, Ltd.