Natowitz v. Mehlman’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Industries, Inc. (1987), 549 F. Supp. 1094 - Gibbons v. Udaras Na Gaeltachta (1982)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Ross v. A. H. Robins Co. · Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd. · Denny v. Barber · Vine v. Beneficial Finance Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the nature of each individual defendant’s participation in the fraud, including facts constituting scienter and an explanation of the defendant’s duty toward the plaintiff; (2) whether the defendant is being sued as a primary defendant or as an aider and abettor; and (3) as to allegations on information and belief, a statement of the source of the information and the reasons upon which the belief is founded.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“directly or indirectly, ... (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice, to defraud, (2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in reliance on the representations that the sole partnership asset (either the Building or, subsequently, the Mortgage) would not be sold or transferred without [the limited partners’] knowledge and written consent (as required by section 98 of the New York Partnership Law), but in any event, if such property were sold and transferred, it would not be for less than full and fair consideration to the Partnership.”
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.