595 F. Supp. 1034 - Bernicker v. Pratt’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995)
Relies on YOUNG v. Kaye · Freedman v. Amalgamated Sugar Co. · Biggans v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. · Tarlo's Estate · 291 Pa. Super. 145 - Bickell v. Stein
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the new scheme, it is unclear whether the two-year period applicable to actions for “taking, detaining or injuring personal property ...” id. § 5524(3) or the six-year catch-all provision, id § 5527(6), applies to an action based on common law fraud____ We need not decide that issue because it would not make a difference under the circumstances presented here. If the six-year catchall provision applies, the limitations period is the same under both the old and new statutes. Even if the two-year statute is generally applicable to fraud actions it would be inapplicable in this case because of the operation of the transition section,____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Sometimes representations alleged to have been fraudulent are written but often they are oral. Whether or not the representations themselves were in writing, proof of reliance generally depends upon the plaintiff’s memory of the defendants’ conduct and the reaction to such conduct. Proof of the elements of fraud may present even more problems of lapsed memory than proof of physically-manifested torts; this suggests that the Legislature intended to place fraud in the same category as such torts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The inclusion of fraud within the two-year statute can be done only by reliance on omission and implication. Neither the language of the Judicial Code nor its legislative history makes clear whether the legislature intended to alter the statute of limitations for actions for common law fraud, and there is no satisfactory state court decision interpreting the statute. I can only conclude that the limitations period for fraud has not been drastically reduced from six to two years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.