Energytec, Inc. v. Proctor’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Bell v. Hood
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhough Texas law allows a claim for aiding and abetting securities fraud, the Texas statute limits the remedy to one in privity with the sale of a security.”); In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 03 Civ. 1785, 2006 WL 1047130 , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21385 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2006) (”
1 later decision 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.