Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
557 federal appellate · 942 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,592 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. (2007)
557 federal appellate · 942 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBroudo v. Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores
Cited together with Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
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 3,592 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For one thing, as a matter of pure logic, at the moment the transaction takes place, the plaintiff has suffered no loss; the inflated purchase payment is offset by ownership of a share that at that instant possesses equivalent value. Moreover, the logical link between the inflated share purchase price and any later economic loss is not invariably strong. Shares are normally purchased with an eye toward a later sale. But if, say, the purchaser sells the shares quickly before the relevant truth begins to leak out, the misrepresentation will not have led to any loss. If the purchaser sells later after the truth makes its way into the marketplace, an initially inflated purchase price might mean a later loss. But that is far from inevitably so. When the purchaser subsequently resells such shares, even at a lower price, that lower price may reflect, not the earlier misrepresentation, but changed economic circumstances, changed investor expectations, new industry-specific or firm-specific facts, conditions, or other events, which taken separately or together account for some or all of that lower price. (The same is true in respect to a claim that a share’s higher price is lower than it would otherwise have been — a claim we do not consider here.) Other things being equal, the longer the time between purchase and sale, the more likely that this is so, ie., the more likely that other factors caused the loss.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a material misrepresentation (or omission); (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance, often referred to in cases involving public securities markets (fraud-on-the-market cases) as “transaction causation”; (5) economic loss; and (6) “loss causation,” i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss.”
42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not meant to impose a great burden upon a plaintiff,”
40 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Starr v. Baca · Starr v. Baca
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.