Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 946 F.2d 38 - Platsis

Platsis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2016

3 district · 1 state decisions

130199020002010decided

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 · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · Broad v. Rockwell International Corp. · Wright v. Holbrook · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Black

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

  1. “is limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it. Platsis v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 946 F.2d 38, 40 (6th Cir.1991) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “In securities fraud claims based on statements of present or historical fact — such as the claims Plaintiffs bring in this case— scienter consists of knowledge or recklessness.” PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler, 364 F.3d 671, 681 (6th Cir.2004).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Since very few brokers disclosed these credits at the time these events took place and there was no established regulatory duty to disclose these items, an intent to deceive or an “extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care” could not be established merely by the omission of this information in the absence of special circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “are essentially fraud claims and must be pleaded with particularity [in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ].”
    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.