Midamerica Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Shearson/american Express Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Charles Grigson River City Films Inc, Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd. (2004)
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 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
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who offers or sells a security by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission ... (the buyer not knowing of the untruth or omission), and who does not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth or omission, is liable to the person buying the security him....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiff does not need to prove either negligence or scienter to meet his burden of proof [under USA § 410]. J.C. Long, Blue Sky Law, supra at § 9:23 at 9-34.1.... The buyer needs only to show 'lack of knowledge of a misleading statement or omission in order to prevail.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]bsent an award so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience and to raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper cause invaded the trial, the jury's determination of the damages is considered inviolate.”
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.