White v. Panic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 10 state decisions

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a broad reading to the facts alleged in the complaint,” White I at 364. In other words, declining to expand factual inferences is not the same as actively limiting those same factual inferences. Moreover, the Supreme Court's admonition to allow "the benefit of reasonable inferences from well-pleaded factual allegations,” White II at 550, is not inconsistent with declining to infer "the existence of other facts that would have been proved or disproven by a further pre-suit investigation.” White I at 364. The reason for this consistency is straightforward: if a complaint is devoid of facts that could have been proved (if they existed) by use of § 220, it is not "well-pleaded,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beam Ex Rel. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. v. Stewart

2. “little use has been made of § 220 as an information-gathering tool in the derivative context” and that this situation was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beam Ex Rel. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. v. Stewart

3. “a derivative plaintiff may rely on the truthfulness of reports published by reputable media,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 401 F. Supp. 2d 159 - Sachs v. Sprague