Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 923 F.2d 989 - Welch III v. Cadre Capital

Welch III v. Cadre Capital’s Empirical Analysis

923 F.2d 989 · 1991

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
June 2016
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann (1993), Pearl v. City of Long Beach (2002)

34 federal appellate · 6 district ·

820199120002010decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 43 U.S.C. § 1331 (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006)

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Teague v. Lane · Wilson v. Garcia · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Linkletter v. Walker

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

  1. “'weigh' in each case whether retroactive application would conflict with the purposes of the rule and whether it would produce inequitable results.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “application of a limitations period not yet in existence at the time suit was commenced clearly does not further”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Ceres, which overrules well-established precedent, meets the threshold requirement for nonretroactive application. Adoption of a uniform federal limitations period changes the practice in this Circuit, which was clear at the time the alleged fraud was discovered, of looking to the law of the forum state for an appropriate statute of limitations for 10b-5 claims.”
    3 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.