Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 F.2d 175 - Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand

Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand’s Empirical Analysis

649 F.2d 175 · 1981

Citation profile

233
cited by 233 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 44 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 233 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), Randall v. Loftsgaarden (1986)

64 federal appellate · 44 district · 5 state decisions

12201981199020002010decided

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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.

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

  1. “(a) Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a strict application of the omissions-misrepresentations dichotomy,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[T]he problem of speculation is not unique to situations in which omissions have occurred. In misrepresentation actions as well, proof of reliance requires a degree of speculation on the action that the plaintiff would have taken had no misrepresentation occurred.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.