744 F. Supp. 1237 - Griffin v. McNiff’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Stevelman v. Alias Research Inc. (1999), Carlon v. Thaman (1997)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 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)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Dismissal of securities fraud claims may be appropriate where the offering documents specifically warn plaintiffs not to rely on the alleged misrepresentations made by defendants, thus making any subsequent reliance unjustified.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may not generally use the fraudulent concealment by one defendant as a means to toll the statute of limitation against other defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs ... challenge more than just the future forecasts and predictions in the offering materials. They argue that the underlying assumptions of the PPMs, tax opinions and projections were designed to mislead the investors into believing that the partnership investments offered them the opportunity to achieve a profit and a tax benefit from their investment, when in reality defendants knew that these possibilities did not exist_ Inasmuch as certain of these allegations go to the misleading nature of the statements when made, the existence of cautionary language regarding the general unpredictability of, inter alia, oil and gas operations, economic trends, and the interpretation of the tax laws, will not bar plaintiffs from maintaining their claims against the remaining defendants.”
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.