Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 877 · 1996
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably in Re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation (1996), La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc. (2004)
26 federal appellate · 2 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. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well-settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest fraud at the time of sale, but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a prudent person would have become suspicious from the knowledge obtained through the initial prudent inquiry and would have investigated further, a plaintiff will be deemed to have knowledge of facts which would have been disclosed in a more extensive investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Summary judgment is appropriate only when uncontroverted evidence irrefutably demonstrates plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraudulent 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.