Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 485 - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,904 William H. Marx and Florence Marx, His Wife v. Computer Sciences Corporation

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,904 William H. Marx and Florence Marx, His Wife v. Computer Sciences Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 485 · 1974

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation (1997), Goldman v. Belden (1985)

52 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

46019741980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · List v. Fashion Park, Inc. · Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc. · Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

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

  1. “'a reasoned and justified statement of opinion, one with a sound factual or historical basis is not actionable.’” Eisenberg, 766 F.2d at 766 (quoting Marx v. Computer Sciences Corp., 507 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir.1974)). 5 . An”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “need not detail every corporate event, current or prospective”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he determination of untruthfulness vel non of a statement is inextricably linked with the so-called “scienter” requirement of a private 10b-5 action and involves an inquiry into the circumstances underlying the statement to ascertain whether or not the maker was guilty of some fault or otherwise culpable.”
    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.