Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 F.2d 339 - Wood v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Wood v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

643 F.2d 339 · 1981

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Sterling & Esther Jensen v. George M. Snellings, III & Snellings, Breard, Sartor, Inabnett & Trascher, Defendants-Third Party Granada Corp. v. Appalachian Insurance Co., Third Party (1988), Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (2002)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

3301981199020002010decided

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. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Burnett v. New York Central Railroad

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the [limitations] period which the forum state applies to the state cause of action bearing the closest substantive resemblance to the implied cause of action arising under the federal securities laws.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is important, however, to note, though gratuitously, that conceptually the gravamen of an action brought under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is fraud....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth or omission.”
    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.