Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 534 · 1981
Citation profile
185 federal appellate · 37 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 453 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston (1983), Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling (1992)
185 federal appellate · 37 district · 15 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Addington v. Texas
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 453 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“touche[d] upon the reasons for [his] investment's decline in value.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) a misstatement or an omission (2) of material fact (3) made with scienter (4) on which the plaintiff relied (5) that proximately caused his injury.”
8 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.