Semegen v. Weidner’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 727 · 1985
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 317 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp. (1994)
48 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 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. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1912
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · Starnes v. United States · International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc. · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seaboard Corporation Admiralty Fund
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 317 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 9(b) requires particularized allegations of the circumstances constituting fraud. The time, place and content of an alleged misrepresentation may identify the statement or the omission complained of, but these circumstances do not “constitute” fraud. The statement in question must be false to be fraudulent. Accordingly, our cases have consistently required that circumstances indicating falseness be set forth.... [W]e [have] observed that plaintiff must include statements regarding the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities, and that “mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” ... The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false. In other words, the plaintiff must set forth an explanation as to why the statement or omission complained of was false or misleading.... In certain cases, to be sure, the requisite particularity might be supplied with great simplicity.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an account of the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.”
10 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.