Bruschi v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 1526 · 1989
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Pelletier v. Zweifel (1991), R. Richard Bastian, III v. Petren Resources Corporation (1990)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [t]he sophistication and expertise of the plaintiff in financial and securities matters; (2) the existence of long standing business or personal relationships; (3) access to relevant information; (4) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (5) concealment of the fraud; (6) the opportunity to detect the fraud; (7) whether the plaintiff initiated the stock transaction or sought to expedite the transaction; and (8) the generality or specificity of the misrepresentations.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plaintiff need not show that the defendant's act was the sole and exclusive cause of the injury he has suffered; 'he need only show that it was 'substantial,' i.e., a significant contributing cause.' " 5 Bruschi, 876 F.2d at 1531 (quoting Wilson v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp., 648 F.2d 88 , 92 (2d Cir.1981)). In other words, plaintiff must show that "the misrepresentation touches upon the reasons for the investment's decline in value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he elements of a Rule 10b-5 cause of action are: (1) the defendant made a false statement or omission of material fact (2) with scienter (3) upon which the plaintiff justifiably relied (4) that proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.”
2 later decisions 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.