Pikk v. Pedersen’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.3d 1222 · 2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc. · Liparota v. United States · Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e agree with the Third Circuit that in determining whether an issue should be treated as an affirmative defense ... the critical question ... is whether requiring the defendant to plead the matter is necessary 'to avoid surprise and undue prejudice by providing the plaintiff with notice and the opportunity to demonstrate why the affirmative defense should not succeed.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“interpreted knowingly and intentionally more expansively, to require knowledge of wrongfulness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law.”
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.