Marsh v. Armada Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 978 · 1976
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Mansbach v. Prescott, Ball & Turben (1979), Isquith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc. (1988)
26 federal appellate · 5 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 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. · United States v. Bornstein
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.
“Although the presence of reliance goes to the sufficiency of the complaint, standing is not accorded to a plaintiff if [her] purchase . . . occurs . . . after the alleged fraudulent conduct was exposed . . . because in such situations reliance clearly could not exist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Common to this type of lawsuit is an alleged Rule 10b-5 claim which requires the court to explore the frontiers of statutory interpretation in order to ascertain whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Thus in dealing with the issues raised here we are not faced with the question whether the defendants’ alleged wrongs call for a remedy, but only whether plaintiffs should have access to the federal courts as well as the state courts to seek the remedy, (emphasis added) Marsh v. Armada Corporation, 533 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1976). Failure to qualify under the Birnbaum rule is a matter that can normally be established by the defendant either on a motion to dismiss or on a motion for summary judgment. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 742 , 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1928 , 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The basis of the rule is a policy determination that to permit suits by persons who claim inaction in reliance on fraudulent claims would open the door to vexatious and meritless lawsuits by persons who never owned stock but who comb the financial pages for possible inaccuracies which could support colorable claims with significant settlement value. Furthermore, the proof in such a lawsuit would consist of the plaintiff’s unsupported testimony that he intended to purchase or sell a certain stock but that he did not do so after reading a certain report. In requiring a purchase or sale to occur, the Birnbaum rule seeks to support a claim of reliance by the fact that the plaintiff purchased or sold stock soon after an allegedly fraudulent act occurred.” Marsh, 533 F.2d at 981 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Herm v. Stafford
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.