Copland v. Grumet’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Z (§ 26 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Pinter v. Dahl · Roemer 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Some post -Central Bank cases have held that third party defendants can be liable for statements made by others, where the defendant substantially participated in preparing the statements.... To the extent that these cases allow liability to attach without requiring a representation to be made by defendant, and reformulate the substantial assistance element of aiding and abetting liability into primary liability, they do not comport with Central Bank.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a defendant controls the content of another actor’s statement, the actor is essentially operating as the agent of the defendant, unlike the situation wherein a defendant provides 'substantial assistance' in aiding the actor’s individual course of conduct[; yet] [t]he key to determining primary liability is that the plaintiff must allege that defendant was the original and knowing source of the misrepresentation,” such that the other was a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In our view, holding individual defendants liable under § 10(b) for the orchestration of a company’s fraudulent financial reports runs afoul of the court’s holdings in Shapiro and Anixter and the notion that only speakers may be held liable for their material misstatements under this aspect of Rule 10b-5 and § 10(b).”
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.