Stratte-McClure v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.3d 94 · 2015
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Chiarella v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n omission is actionable under the securities laws only when the corporation is subject to a duty to disclose the omitted facts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 may arise 'when there is a corporate insider trad[ing] on confidential information, a statute or regulation requiring disclosure, or a corporate statement that would otherwise be inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty [that] is both presently known to management and reasonably likely to have material effects on the registrant's financial condition[ ] or results of operations.”
4 later decisions 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.