Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 683 F.2d 51 - Billard v. Rockwell International Corp.

Billard v. Rockwell International Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

683 F.2d 51 · 1982

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
August 2015
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Luce v. Edelstein (1986), Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc. (1994)

17 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3901982199020002010decided

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 · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Chiarella v. United States · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Although the fairness of the offering price is not a valid basis for an action under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) ..., a statement that experts have examined the price and certified it as fair may well be a material misrepresentation if those experts have advised the offeror that the price is unfair.”
    1 later decision 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.