Drake v. Letterman Transaction Services’s Empirical Analysis
799 F.2d 967 · 1986
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 163 Ill. 2d 33 - Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc. (1994), Little v. Republic Refining Co. (1991)
27 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Sullivan v. United States · Nogueras v. Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc. · Morgan Walton Properties, Inc. v. International City Bank & Trust Co.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“decision to grant a directed verdict ... is not a matter of discretion, but a conclusion of law based upon a finding that there is insufficient evidence to create a fact question for the jury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions [for directed verdict and for JNOV] is proper.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““permits the defrauded securities buyer to place upon the defendant the burden of any decline in the value of the securities between the date of purchase and the date of sale even though only a portion of that decline may have been proximately caused by the defendant’s wrong.... Under these circumstances, the rescissional measure is unjust insofar as it compensates an investor for the nonspecific risks which he assumes by entering the market. Losses thus accruing have no relation to either the benefits derived by the defendants from the fraud or to the blameworthiness of their conduct.””
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.