Ziemack v. Centel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2016
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. § 783 · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Carnegie v. United States · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]raud on the market theory allows a plaintiff who relied on the integrity of the market but never heard the allegedly fraudulent statements to sue.” (citation omitted)). Ploss has not made this argument, so it is waived. Even if he did argue it, it is unclear whether it would have been successful. Asserting fraud-on-the-market”
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.