Sperry v. Barggren’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 708 · 1975
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably Hobson v. Wilson (1984), Durham v. Business Management Associates (1988)
25 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Patterson v. United States · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al. · Tomera v. Galt
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"placed undue emphasis upon the mere existence of these rather brief news items, two of which appeared only in Wisconsin papers, without considering the lack of any factor which might have alerted an average shareholder [referring to the minority shareholders] residing in Florida to be wary ... none of the articles indicated the share price or the number of shares outstanding and would thus not necessarily have put the [minority shareholders] on notice even if they had read them.” 523 F.2d at 711 (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“One issue before the District Court was thus the presence or absence of concealment. Should active concealment be found, then the statute is tolled until actual discovery. . . . If no active concealment is present, then the issue becomes whether knowledge of the alleged fraud could reasonably have been acquired (at an earlier date) with the exercise of due care.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(s)ince neither party contests the correctness of the Kramer holding, we assume its validity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cahill v. Ernst
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.