Marks v. CDW Computer Centers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · United States v. Kubrick
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has materials in his possession, even if he chose not to read them, that would have put a reasonable person on inquiry notice of securities fraud.”); Marlow v. Gold, 1991 WL 107268 , at (S.D.N.Y.1991) (plaintiff cannot avoid statute of limitations by alluding to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Perry
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.