Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 679 F.2d 703 - Trecker v. Scag

Trecker v. Scag’s Empirical Analysis

679 F.2d 703 · 1982

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2010

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1901982199020002010decided

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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Holmberg v. Armbrecht

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

  1. ““All that Trecker can now be saying in this Rule 10b-5 action is that if he had known of Ransomes’ negotiations during the pendency of his redemption suit, he would have abandoned it and held on to his shares. If Trecker could have done that, then neither materiality nor scienter is precluded and he has stated a claim under Rule 10b-5. The defendants conceded as much at oral argument.” 679 F.2d at 709 . “We regret further complications in an already protracted and internecine struggle, but the case should not have been resolved, and on remand cannot go forward, without an adequate development by the parties of this important aspect of Wisconsin law.” 679 F.2d at 710 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““At least two types of fraudulent concealment toll a statutory period ... In the first type, the most common, the fraud goes undiscovered even though the defendant after commission of the wrong does nothing to conceal it and the plaintiff has diligently inquired into its circumstances. The plaintiff’s due diligence is essential here. (Citations omitted.) In the second type, the fraud goes undiscovered because the defendant has taken positive steps after the commission of the fraud to keep it concealed ... this type of fraudulent concealment tolls the limitations period until actual discovery by the plaintiff.””
    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.