Tedesco v. Mishkin’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2010
2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Brady v. United States · United Families of America v. Kendrick · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hudson v. Palmer
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In aggregate, the named plaintiffs invested in many of the investment vehicles through which the alleged fraudulent scheme was conducted. More importantly, to satisfy the typicality requirement, it is not necessary for the named plaintiffs to have invested in all of the investment vehicles. See Dura-Bilt, 89 F.R.D. at 99 . The supplemental amended complaint alleges a single pattern of fraud. The named plain tiffs’ claims arise out of that scheme, which also gives rise to claims of the other class members. Further, the claims of the named plaintiffs and the class members are based on identical legal theories. See Santiago v. Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 625 (E.D.Pa.1976). Thus the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the other class members.”
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.