795 F. Supp. 248 - Cortes v. Gratkowski’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act)
Relies on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois · James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he tolling provision provides that the three-year period begins to run on the earlier of the date the plaintiff has actual knowledge or the date the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have had actual knowledge of the alleged violations____ [The complaint must be] filed within three years of the discovery of the fraudulent activity and within five years of the alleged purchase of partnership interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]or many years we have applied to cases under Rule 10b-5 statutes of limitations borrowed from state blue sky statutes, adding an overlay of tolling principles from state and federal law ... Federal courts are so accustomed to turning to state periods of limitations that we (and our colleagues in other circuits) did this on autopilot, without discussing whether something differentiated securities laws from other statutes.”
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.