Stone v. Kirk’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 1079 · 1993
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Viola (1994), Goren v. New Vision International, Inc. (1998)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 United States v. Turkette · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to ‘participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs,’ one must have some part in directing those affairs. Of course, the word ‘participate’ makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise’s affairs, just as the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise, but some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs is required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the case at bar ... the question of fraud was properly submitted to the jury as part of the securities case. It would be inappropriate for us to require the trial judge to render separate findings of fact here, because a finding contrary to that already made by the jury on the securities fraud issue could not stand. That being so, any error committed by the district court in submitting the issue of dischargeability to the jury was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The correct measure of damages arising under § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 is generally held to be an “out-of-pocket” measure. By this is meant “the difference between the fair value of all that the [plaintiff] received and the fair value of what he would have received had there been no fraudulent conduct.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Faulhaber
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.