Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 824 FSUPP 65 - Malone v. Microdyne Corp.

Malone v. Microdyne Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
March 2000
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Padilla-Martinez v. United States · In re Disbarment of Gonzales · DiLeo v. Ernst & Young · Luce v. Edelstein · Yamamoto v. United States

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a party has been fully heard ... and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We expected to close sales in 30 to 60 days. Instead, the product is taking 90 days or longer to sell in quantity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Our estimate of the product's eventual success has not changed,”
    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.