Dalberth v. Xerox Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.3d 172 · 2014
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Norton v. Sam's Club · Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the 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-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An issue of fact is genuine 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,”
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.