Lustgraaf v. Behrens’s Empirical Analysis
619 F.3d 867 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that a ‘primary violator’ violated the federal securities laws; (2) that ‘the alleged control person actually exercised control over the general operations of the primary violator’; and (3) that ‘the alleged control person possessed—but did not necessarily exercise—the power to determine the specific acts or omissions upon which the underlying violation is predicated.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he strength of an inference cannot be decided in a vacuum. The inquiry is inherently comparative: How likely is it that one conclusion, as compared to others, follows from the underlying facts? To determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts that give rise to the requisite “strong inference” of scienter, ‘a court must consider plausible nonculpa-ble explanations for the defendant’s conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff. The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable, i.e., of the “smoking-gun” genre, or even the “most plausible of competing inferences.” ... Yet the inference of scienter must be more than merely “reasonable” or “permissible”—it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. A complaint will survive, we hold, only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
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.