Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.2d 1461 · 1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation (1992), Pelletier v. Zweifel (1991)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 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. § 78E (§ 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must establish a causal connection between the alleged predicate acts of securities fraud and the losses they seek to recover.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n an action brought under Rule 10b-5 for material omissions or misstatements, the plaintiff must prove both transaction causation, that the violations in question caused the plaintiff to engage in the transaction, and loss causation, that the misrepresentations or omissions caused the harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962”
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.