Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
309 federal appellate · 230 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,283 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Freytag v. Commissioner (1991)
309 federal appellate · 230 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedSandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Cort v. Ash · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores
Cited together with Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson
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 1,283 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the breadth of the right once recognized should not, as a general matter, grow beyond the scope congressionally intended.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage“If it appears to the administrator that a person has engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice in violation of a provision of this chapter or regulation or order under this chapter, the administrator may (1) in the public interest or for the protection of investors, issue an order (A) directing the person to cease and desist from continuing the act or practice; (B) directing the person, for a period not to exceed three years, to file the annual reports, proxies, consents or authorizations, proxy statements, or other materials relating to proxy solicitations ... with the administrator for examination and review 10 working days before a distribution to shareholders; and (C) voiding the proxies obtained by a person . including their future exercise or actions resulting from their past exercise, if the proxies were solicited by means of an untrue or misleading statement. ...”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“not every mixture with the true will neutralize the deceptive. If it would take a financial analyst to spot the tension between the one and the other, whatever is misleading will remain materially so, and liability should follow.”
9 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.