Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,535 Harold Harris v. Union Electric Company’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 355 · 1986
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 13 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), Ceres Partners v. GEL Associates (1990)
48 federal appellate · 13 district · 5 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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) that the defendant acted in a manner prohibited by the Rule, whether it be that the defendant employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, made misrepresentations or omissions of material fact, or engaged in acts, practices or courses of business that operate as a fraud or deceit; 2) causation, often analyzed in terms of materiality and reliance; 3) damages; and 4) that the fraudulent activity occurred in connection with the purchase and sale of a security.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“13. The Defendants, singularly and in concert, by act and omission, prepared, reviewed, tolerated and distributed Offering Statements to Plaintiff and to those individuals who originally purchased such Bonds, which contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading, which operated as a fraud and deceit on each purchaser in the manner and form set forth below: (a) The untrue statements of material facts contained in the Offering Statement included the following: ife ‡ * $ $ sj« (b) The material facts which the Defendant omitted to state which were necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, included the following: sje $ $ * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he proper measure of damages in this case is the difference between the purchase price and the actual value of the bonds on the date they were issued.”
3 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.