Barkman v. Wabash, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 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 Hishon v. King & Spalding · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Solem v. Stumes
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the fraud alleged in this ease is based on conduct of defendants which was uniform as to all class members. No individual representations were made, nor were there any separate communications between defendants and individual class members, [citations omitted] All class members were faced with the same allegedly fraudulent statements and instances of non-disclosure in determining whether or not to accept the tender offer. Thus, essentially the same proof that will be introduced in the federal securities law claims will be relevant to the state law claims and issues of personal reliance may be reserved for a determination of damages----”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Endo v. Albertine
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.