Anixter’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co. (1993), 23920s Geils Band Employee Benefit Plan v. Smith Barney Shearson Inc (1996)
5 federal appellate · 15 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.
Relationships
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Holmberg v. Armbrecht
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e believe the more accurate analysis [of Section 13] excludes the application of [equitable estoppel] when the consequence operates to trump a clear outer limit intended by Congress. “Unless the ‘in no event more than three’ language cuts off claims of tolling and estoppel at three years, however, it serves no purpose at all — what other function could be served by such language in a statute that starts the time on discovery?” We therefore conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not available to avoid the statute of repose established by Section 13.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under section 11 [15 U.S.C. § 77k] or 12(2) [ 15 U.S.C. § 77 /(2)] of this title unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or, if the action is to enforce a liability created under section 12(1) [ 15 U.S.C. § 77 /(1)] of this title, unless brought within one year after the violation upon which it is based. In no event shall any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under section 11 [15 U.S.C. § 77k] or 12(1) [ 15 U.S.C. § 77 / (1) ] of this title more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public, or under section 12(2) [ 15 U.S.C. § 77 / (2) ] of this title more than three years after the sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In no event shall any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under section 77k [section 11] or section 77/(1) [section 12(1)] of this title more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public, or under section 77/(2) [section 12(2)] of this title more than three years after the sale.”
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.