Neubronner v. Milken’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.3d 666 · 1993
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp. (1994), Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA (2003)
29 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Industries, Inc. · Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc. · Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc. · Semegen v. Weidner · New England Data Services, Inc. v. Becher
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specifically what information [the analysts] obtained, when and from whom [they] obtained it, and how [they] used it for [their] own advantage.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he complaint offers no specific facts demonstrating wrongdoing which [defendant] could deny or otherwise controvert.”
5 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.