Elam v. Neidorff’s Empirical Analysis
544 F.3d 921 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Lustgraaf v. Behrens (2010), In Re Gildan Activewear, Inc. Securities Litigation (2009)
7 federal appellate · 10 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 7241 (§ 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Janas v. McCracken · Miller v. Pezzani · Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp. · Florida State Board of Administration v. Green Tree Financial Corp.
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.
“specify each statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Scienter can be established in three ways: (1) from facts demonstrating a mental state embracing an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud; (2) from conduct which rises to the level of severe recklessness; or (3) from allegations of motive and opportunity. See K-tel, 300 F.3d at 893-94 . The relevant inquiry is “whether all the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any allegation, scrutinized in isolation meets that standard.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 , 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2502 , 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.”
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.