Romano v. Kazacos’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.3d 512 · 2010
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77R (§ 18 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 27 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 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. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 42 U.S.C. § 2014 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · Land US v. Dollar · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. · Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a "covered class action"; (2) based on state statutory or common law; (3) concerning a covered security; and (4) alleging that defendants made a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact ... in connection with the purchase or sale of that security.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) any single lawsuit in which— (I) damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons or prospective class members, and questions of law or fact common to those persons or members of the prospective class, without reference to issues of individualized reliance on an alleged misstatement or omission, predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons or members; or (II) one or more named parties seek to recover damages on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other unnamed parties similarly situated, and questions of law or fact common to those persons or members of the prospective class predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons or members; or (ii) any group of lawsuits filed in or pending in the same court and involving common questions of law or fact, in which— (I) damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons; and (II) the lawsuits are joined, consolidated, or otherwise proceed as a single action for any purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Application of the first prong is a bit tricky because SLUSA is a statute of preclusion, rather than preemption. But its effect is the same: where plaintiffs proceed as a class of fifty or more, state law securities claims are no longer available to them and federal law, which compels the dismissal of those claims, controls. Application of the second prong is straightforward. Since SLUSA expressly provides for the removal of covered class actions, it falls under the “removal” exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Consequently, we are free to look beyond the face of the amended complaints to determine whether they allege securities fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities.”
2 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.