San Francisco Real Estate Investors v. Real Estate Investment Trust of America’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 1000 · 1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. (1991), Gelco Corporation III v. Coniston Partners (1987)
11 federal appellate · 5 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 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 26 U.S.C. § 856 · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood · Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. · Edgar v. Mite Corp. · Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp. · Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court properly noted the familiar four part inquiry into (1) plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the irreparability of harm to plaintiff if relief is not granted, (3) the excess of such harm over harm to defendant if relief is granted, and (4) the adverse effect on the public interest if relief is granted. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Connolly, 686 F.2d 1029 (1st Cir.1982). We note in addition the constraints laid on us to defer to the district court’s action unless we find an abuse of discretion or error of law. Burgess v. Affleck, 683 F.2d 596 (1st Cir.1982); Crowley v. Local No. 82, 679 F.2d 978 , 994 (1st Cir.1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[WJhile taking care not to tip the balance between offeror and target sought to be achieved by the Williams Act, [a court should] consider (1) whether a substantial number of shares were purchased after the misleading disclosures and before corrective disclosure, (2) whether the curative disclosure occurred simultaneously with or on the even of a tender offer, and (3) whether the violation was egregious.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We ... recogniz[e] that an injunction forbidding an acquisition is not, except in the most egregious cases, the preferred or even proper remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.