Cavalier Carpets, Inc. v. Caylor’s Empirical Analysis
746 F.2d 749 · 1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 5 Cal. 4th 1082 - Mirkin v. Wasserman (1993), Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co. (1987)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Chiarella v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendants did not “stand mute” in the face of a duty to disclose as did the defendants in Affiliated Ute. They undertook instead to disclose relevant information in an offering statement now alleged to contain certain misstatements of fact and to fail to contain other facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances, not misleading.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nder the circumstances of this case, involving primarily a failure to disclose, positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The separate elements of a 10b-5 claim are well established: first, ‘scienter of the defendant,’ second, ‘materiality of any misrepresentation or omission by the defendant,’ third, ‘the extent of actual reliance by the plaintiff on the defendant’s statements,’ and fourth, ‘the justifiability of the reliance, frequently translated into a requirement, of due diligence by the plaintiff.’ White v. Sanders, 689 F.2d 1366, 1367 (11th Cir.1982) quoting Dupuy v. Dupuy, 551 F.2d 1005, 1014 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 911 , 98 S.Ct. 312 , 54 L.Ed.2d 197 (1977). See also e.g., Diamond v. Lamotte, 709 F.2d 1419, 1422-23 (11th Cir.1983) (essential elements are false representation of material fact, defendant’s scienter, plaintiff’s justifiable reliance, and proximate causation of plaintiff’s damages).”
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.