Cummings v. Paramount Partners, LP’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs also have alleged that they suffered an injury and they have presented sufficient factual content from which it is reasonable to infer that the moving Defendant's asserted breach of the duty owed to Plaintiff was the proximate cause of such injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an intensely factual question, involving scrutiny of the defendant's participation in the day-to-day affairs of the corporation and the defendant's power to control corporate actions.”
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.