Biggans v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
638 F.2d 605 · 1980
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably Data Access Systems Securities Litigation Tolins Lowenfels Kahlowsky and Co (1988), Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand (1981)
23 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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 Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · Gooding v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Economic Research Analysts, Inc. v. O'Connell · Cook v. Avien, 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Any person who ... offers or sells a security in violation of sections 401, 403, 404 or otherwise 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 ... shall be liable to the person purchasing the security from him .... (b) Any person who purchases a security in violation of sections 401, 403, 404 or otherwise 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 ... shall be liable to the person selling the security to him ....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] reasoning which underlay the decision of the court to apply the New Jersey common law fraud statute of limitations in Roberts compels a similar result in this case. Where the state Blue Sky law does not provide the plaintiff with a cause' of action for the relief requested, but common law does, and where the state legislature framed its statute to supplement, rather than supplant, available common law remedies, it is the common law limitations period which must be applied in federal securities actions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under section 5011 (or section 503 2 in so far as it relates to that section) unless brought before the expiration of three years after the act or transaction constituting the violation or the expiration of one year after the plaintiff receives actual notice or upon the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the facts constituting the violation, whichever shall first expire.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.