Wilson v. Ruffa & Hanover, P.C.’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 81 · 1988
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably R. Richard Bastian, III v. Petren Resources Corporation (1990), Schlifke v. Seafirst Corp. (1989)
18 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78R (§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Kahn v. Grant · Cryts v. French · United States v. Bornstein
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In drafting Section 12(2), Congress obviously sought to provide a heightened deterrent against sellers who make misrepresentations, by rendering tainted transactions voidable at the option of the defrauded purchaser regardless of whether the loss is due to the fraud or to a general market decline.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plaintiff must show both 'loss causation--that the misrepresentations or omissions caused the economic harm--and transaction causation--that the violations in question caused the [plaintiff] to engage in the transaction in question.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) to file a brief amicus curiae. We now affirm our original holding, though on the rather different grounds required by Pinter. BACKGROUND 2 We assume familiarity with our prior opinion and summarize only the salient facts here. In March 1981, Fred Rodolfy suggested to appellee Kenneth Wilson that Wilson invest in the stock of Saintine Exploration and Drilling Corporation (”
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.