Bridwell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2016
3 federal appellate · 11 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Leary v. United States · Marchetti v. United States · Grosso v. United States · Minnesota v. Murphy
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that it would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of a reasonable investor, in that it would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as significantly altering the total mix of available information used in deciding whether to invest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE GRAND JURORS, ... present that Alberto Alba Villarreal, ... ON OR ABOUT THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008, ... did then and there sell and offer for sale a membership interest in NAFTA HOLDINGS, LLC, said membership interest being a security, to wit: an investment contract and/or an instrument representing or secured by any or all of the capital, property, assets, profits or earning of any company, to ENRIQUE GARRI-DO in the amount of $1,000,000, and said Defendant committed fraud in connection with the sale of said security by[, among other things]: ... [ijntentionally failing to disclose that funds invested by ENRIQUE GARRIDO would be used for purposes other than those intended, said information being a material fact _and did then and there unlawfully appropriate, by acquiring or otherwise exercising control over, property, to-wit: U.S. Currency, of the value of $200,000 or more, from ENRIQUE GARRIDO, the owner thereof, without the effective consent of the owner, namely by deception, and with intent to deprive.the owner of the property, —”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] jury could rationally conclude there was a “substantial likelihood” that a “reasonable investor” would want to know about appellant’s prior use of investors’ funds for personal purposes, and his prior use of faked documents to explain the lack of return on the investments. Such disclosure certainly would have altered the total mix of information, and affected the decision to invest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gant v. State
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.