Abelson v. Strong’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A purchaser on the stock exchange may be either unaware of a specific false representation, or may not directly rely on it; he may purchase because of a favorable price trend, price earnings-ratio, or some other factor. Nevertheless, he relies generally on the supposition that the market price is validly set and that no unsuspected manipulation has artificially inflated the price, and thus indirectly on the truth of the representations underlying the stock price—whether he is aware of it or not, the price he pays reflects material misrepresentations. Requiring direct proof from each purchaser that he relied on a particular representation when purchasing would defeat recovery by those whose reliance was indirect____ We decline to leave such open market purchasers unprotected. The statute and rule are designed to foster an expectation that securities markets are free from fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the state law providing for an express private cause of action prohibits the same conduct as the federal statute supporting an implied cause of action, i.e., fraud in securities transactions, and serves the same policy, i.e., preventing such fraud, the state statute is clearly more analogous to the federal cause of action than the multiform concept of common law fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) any person who ... (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 ... is liable____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gaudette v. Panos
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.