Rothberg v. Rosenbloom’s Empirical Analysis
771 F.2d 818 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Chestman (1991), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cherif (1991)
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Chiarella v. United States · Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp. · Coates v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he general standard of materiality ... contemplate^] ... a showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. Put another way, there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul v. Berkman“Unquestionably a factfinder could draw the reasonable inference that a reasonable investor would see the obvious connection between increased revenues and the likelihood of increased profits. The finding that a reasonable investor would consider the sales information to be “objective, valuable, material knowledge” ... is not clearly erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case [the insiders] were fiduciaries of the [the acquiring corporation] ... and owed that corporation a duty not to disclose secret information which would cause others to buy [the target corporations's] stock, thereby making it more difficult for [the acquirer] to consummate a merger on favorable terms.”
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.