Casella’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 7 state decisions

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'cannot be considered in isolation,' but must be viewed 'in the context of the total presentation.' " Id. ( quoting Hughes v. Dempsey-Tegeler & Co. , 534 F.2d 156, 176 ( 9th Cir. 1976 ) ) . "What might be innocuous 'puffery' or mere statement of opinion standing alone may be actionable as an integral part of a representation of material fact when used to emphasize and induce reliance upon such a representation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Morgan Keegan & Co. · Jagged Peak Energy Inc. Joseph N. Jaggers Robert W. Howard Shonn D. Stahlecker Charles D. Davison S. Wil Vanloh, Jr. Blake A. Webster Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Goldman, Sachs & Co. RBC Capital Markets, LLC Wells Fargo Securities, LLC UBS Securities LLC Keybanc Capital Markets, Inc. ABN AMRO Securities (USA) LLC Fifth Third Securities, Inc. Petrie Partners Securities, LLC Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. BMO Capital Markets Corp. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Evercore Group L.L.C. and Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. v. Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

2. “an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daou Systems Inc Securities Litigation v. V W · Daou Systems Inc v. V W

3. “is liable to the person buying from him, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at six percent per year from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, less the amount of any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security. Damages are the amount that would be recoverable upon a tender less the value of the security when the buyer disposed of it and interest at six per cent per year from the date of disposition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Access Cardiosystems, Inc. v. Fincke (In Re Access Cardiosystems, Inc.)