O'Hara v. Kovens’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.2d 15 · 1980
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2007 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Data Access Systems Securities Litigation Tolins Lowenfels Kahlowsky and Co (1988)
21 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not necessary that the state statute operate in the same fashion as the federal scheme, nor is it necessary that the state statute describe a cause of action identical to the federal cause at issue. There simply must be a commonality of purpose between the federal right and the state statutory scheme so that it is reasonable to subject the federal implied right to the statute of limitations provided by state law.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gurley v. Documation Inc. · Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,730, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,610 Michael L. Gurley David W. Davis v. Documation Incorporated S. Ray Halbert Richard J. Testa Testa, Hurwitz and Thibeault Michael L. Gurley, David W. Davis v. Documation Incorporated S. Ray Halbert, and Richard J. Testa, Testa, Hurwitz and Thiebeault, Michael L. Gurley David W. Davis v. Documation Incorporated S. Ray Halbert and Richard J. Testa Testa, Hurwitz and Thiebeault“(a) Any person who: (1) Sells or offers to sell a security in violation of any provision of this article or of any rule or order imposed under this article or of any condition imposed under this article, or (2) 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, 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 from him who may bring an action to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at six percent per year from the date of payment, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security. Damages are the amount that would be recoverable upon a tender less the value of the security when the buyer disposed of it and interest of six percent per year from the date of disposition. (e) No person may bring an action under this section more than two years after the contract of sale... .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the simple truth that the federal and state statutes at issue here were designed to achieve similar ends.”
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.