Eichenholtz v. Brennan’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 478 · 1995
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Martin, In Re: Continental Airlines (2000)
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · Kuntz v. City of Dayton · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“5. The non-settling parties are permanently barred and enjoined from asserting or continuing to prosecute, either directly or in any other capacity, any and all Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) whether directly, indirectly, derivatively, representatively, or in any other capacity (excluding claims to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement), against P & H. The Released Claims are compromised, settled, and released as against P & H by virtue of this Approval and Bar Order. 6. By virtue of the “good faith” nature of the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court, P & H is discharged from all Released Claims for contribution, indemnification or the like that have been or may later be brought by or on behalf of any of the non-settling parties based upon, relating to or arising out of the Released Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Other Defendants are permanently barred, enjoined and restrained from asserting or continuing to prosecute any such Claim, however styled, whether for contribution, indemnity or otherwise, and whether arising under state, federal or common law against P & H, based upon, arising out of, or related to the Claims. 7. With respect to any judgment that might be entered on any cause of action or claim in this action, or any pending future adversary proceeding, contested matter or civil action in which the Trustee is also a party, in which there is or may be a determination of fault on' the part of P & H, incl”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“every accountant ... who has with his consent been named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement ... or any report or valuation which is used in connection with the registration statement” for "an untrue statement of a material fact or omit[ting] to state a material fact.” 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a). 6 . Non-settling defendants Adam Varrenti, pro se, and R.F. Lafferty & Co. have not objected to the settlement agreement. All of the individual objectors are officers or directors of ELCOA or its parent Walnut. 7 . Non-settling defendant John Orr’s identical memorandum will not be referred to for citation purposes. 8 . "As pointed out by the Ninth Circuit, the proportionate fault rule satisfies the statutory contribution goals of equity, deterrence, and the policy goal of encouraging settlement.”
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.