Searls v. Glasser’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 1061 · 1995
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation (1997), Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. (1996)
50 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77J (§ 10 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · In re Disbarment of Johnson · Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · G-K Development Co. v. Broadmoor Place Investments
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'clear showing that the denial of discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is simply too vague to constitute a material statement of fact.... It is a promotional phrase used to champion the company but is devoid of any substantive information. Just as indefinite predictions of 'growth' are better describe as puffery rather than as material statements of fact, describing a company as 'recession-resistant' lacks the requisite specificity to be considered anything but optimistic rhetoric. Its lack of specificity precludes it from being deemed material; it contains no useful information upon which a reasonable investor would base a decision to invest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ari Parnes Deborah Slyne Corey Emert Faye Martin Anderson Edward R. Pepper, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Theodore W. Waitt Richard D. Snyder James Cravens George H. Krauss Douglas L. Lacey Norman W. Waitt, Jr., Faye Martin Anderson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Theodore W. Waitt Richard D. Snyder James Cravens George H. Krauss Douglas L. Lacey · Parnes“The federal securities laws should not be mistaken for insurance against risky investments; the federal reporters are replete with failed attempts to do just that. Securities laws protect investors against fraud; they do not provide investors with a recourse against unsuccessful management strategies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ari Parnes Deborah Slyne Corey Emert Faye Martin Anderson Edward R. Pepper, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Theodore W. Waitt Richard D. Snyder James Cravens George H. Krauss Douglas L. Lacey Norman W. Waitt, Jr., Faye Martin Anderson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Theodore W. Waitt Richard D. Snyder James Cravens George H. Krauss Douglas L. Lacey · Parnes
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.