Ross v. A. H. Robins Co.’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 545 · 1979
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 47 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 447 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. (2007)
80 federal appellate · 47 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
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States
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 447 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... does not mean, however, that plaintiffs are relieved of their burden of pleading circumstances that provide at least a minimal factual basis for their conclusory allegations of scienter. “It is reasonable to require that the plaintiffs specifically plead those events” which “give rise to a strong inference” that the defendants had an intent to defraud, knowledge of the falsity of reckless disregard for the truth.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Any person who: (2) offers or sells or materially assists any person who offers or sells a security by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, who knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the untruth or omission, the buyer not knowing of the untruth or omission, and who does not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth or omission, is liable to the person buying the security. . .”
10 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.