521 F. Supp. 1370 - Hill v. Der’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77T (§ 20 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77X (§ 24 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order properly to allege a claim under § 12(2), the complaint must set forth the time and circumstances of the discovery of the fraudulent statements, the reasons why discovery was not made earlier if more than one year has elapsed since the fraudulent conduct occurred, and the diligent efforts which plaintiff undertook in making or seeking such discovery.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]f the underlying state [securities] law does not afford a civil damage action to remedy the behavior challenged by the 10b-5 claim and the plaintiff would be relegated to a common law fraud action for state relief, the courts must apply the fraud limitations provision to the 10b-5 action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Any person who— ****** (2) offers or sells a security * * * by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate com merce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or inequity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security or for damages if he no longer owns the security.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.