Nathel v. Siegal’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1658 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even where a bank was on notice of 'red flags' that indicated certain accounts may have been vehicles for fraudulent activity and referred the case to its internal fraud unit, the bank had only suspicions but not actual knowledge of fraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]llegations of constructive knowledge or recklessness are insufficient ... [but an] allegation of actual knowledge does not have to be based on defendant's explicit acknowledgment of the fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“knew facts or had access to information suggesting his public statements were not accurate, or failed to check information that he had a duty to monitor.”
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.