Ackerman v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2012
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
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. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(excluding liability under § 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77l ) and because he did not have the mental state necessary for liability under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and the SEC's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. The malpractice claim foundered, the district court held, because Schwartz owed no duty to the investors. We turn first to plaintiffs' claims under § 12. 6 * Section 12 creates a remedy against any person (1) who”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ackerman v. Schwartz“They shall “set forth facts” and by implication in the case of experts (who are not “fact witnesses”) a process of reasoning beginning from a firm foundation. “It will not do to say that it must all be left to the skill of experts. Expertise is a rational process and a rational process implies expressed reasons for judgment.” ... An expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he investors have proceeded no further than did the plaintiffs in Barker. They have presented nothing to support the inference that Mr. Schwartz or his firm knew, when they issued the opinion letter, of a strong likelihood that MEL, Leibowitz, or VanWaeyenberghe would distribute the letter to potential investors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ackerman v. Schwartz
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.