Devaney v. Chester’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 566 · 1987
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. (1991), DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Industries, Inc. (1987)
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Goldman v. Belden · Luce v. Edelstein · Ross v. A. H. Robins Co. · Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd.
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“with its broad disclaimers as to the source of information contained therein, does not support an allegation of reliance. Investors would not be likely to rely on memoranda which so definitely stated their dependency on another source”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““court should not ... have considered the reasonableness of appellants’ reliance; that issue went to the merits of appellants’ claims and thus was not properly before the court on Salomon’s 9(b) motion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Devaney v. Chester
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.