Thompson v. Paul’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.3d 1055 · 2008
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably WPP Luxembourg Gamma Three Sarl v. Spot Runner, Inc. (2011), Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp. (2013)
13 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
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K
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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), makes it unlawful “for any person ... [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security ... any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe[.]” SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated under the authority of section 10(b), in turn, provides: It shall be unlawful for any person ... (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) 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 (c) 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. 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a matter of law and common sense, [Ms. Thompson] had no right to rely on statements made by the attorneys opposing [her].” (Dkt. # 33, pp. 3-4). In addition, the Court notes that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and we can affirm on any ground supported by the record.”
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.