Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 734 F.2d 740 - Lipton v. Documation, Inc.

Lipton v. Documation, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

734 F.2d 740 · 1984

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), Roeder v. Alpha Industries, Inc. (1987)

31 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

5601984199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Commissioner v. Engle · Sullivan v. United States · Commonwealth National Bank v. Ashe

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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “causation is adequately established in the impersonal stock exchange context by proof of purchase and of the materiality of misrepresentations, without direct proof of reliance. Materiality circumstantially establishes the reliance of some market traders and hence the inflation in the stock price — when the purchase is made the causational chain between the defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s loss is sufficiently established to make out a prima facie case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[Sklar ] dictates that this circuit recognize the fraud on the market theory as a basis for recovery where the defendant’s deception inflates open market stock prices. To hold otherwise would result in this circuit adopting the theory in a setting where its applicability has been questioned, and rejecting its use where it best advances the goals of the federal securities laws.”
    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.