Osofsky v. Zipf’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.2d 107 · 1981
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Boguslavsky v. Kaplan (1998), Mordechai Gurary Isaac Winehouse Isaac Winehouse Nu-Tech Bio-Med Inc (1999)
23 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he benefít-of-the-bargain rule should be applied under the 1934 Act to the limited situation involved in [that] case, where misrepresentation is made in the tender offer and proxy solicitation materials as to the consideration to be forthcoming upon an intended merger.... [G]iving the plaintiff benefít-of-the-bargain damages is appropriate only when they can be established with reasonable certainty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... The rights and remedies provided by this chapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity; but no person permitted to maintain a suit for damages under the provisions of this chapter shall recover, through satisfaction of judgment in one or more actions, a total amount in excess of his actual damages on account of the act complained of ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“entitled to recover only the excess of what he paid over the value of what he got, not, as some other courts had held, the difference between the value of what he got and what it was represented he would be getting.”
2 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.