Pin v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 1448 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark (1987), Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A. (1986)
14 federal appellate ·
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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Patterson v. United States · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The signature of an attorney or [unrepresented] party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Didie v. Howes“An offering to those who are shown to be able to fend for themselves is a transaction “not involving any public offering.” Similarly, since the purpose of § 14(d) is to protect the ill-informed soli-citee, the question of whether a solicitation constitutes a “tender offer” within the meaning of § 14(d) turns on whether, viewing the transaction in the light of the totality of circumstances, there appears to be a likelihood that unless the pre-acquisition filing strictures of that statute are followed there will be a substantial risk that solieitees will lack information needed to make a carefully considered appraisal of the proposal put before them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The determination of whether the proposed intervenor's complaint states a cause of action is controlled by the general rules on testing a pleading; the factual allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true ... and the pleading is construed liberally in support of the pleader.”
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.