Arneil v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis
550 F.2d 774 · 1977
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker (1983), Armstrong v. McAlpin (1983)
68 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Babcock v. Jackson
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] cause of action for fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act arises where `its economic impact is felt, normally the plaintiff's residence.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Relation back, at least on the facts of this case, would not accord with one of the rationales of [American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 [ 94 S.Ct. 756 , 38 L.d.2d 713] (1974)], that commencement of the class action adequately notifies the defendants ‘not only of the substantive claims being brought against them, but also of the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate in the judgment. Within the period set by the statute of limitations, the defendants have the essential information necessary to determine both the subject matter ánd size of the prospective litigation * * 414 U.S. at 554-555 , 94 S.Ct. at 767 .””
3 later decisions 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.