Ackerman v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis
947 F.2d 841 · 1991
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 3 Cal. 4th 370 - Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992), Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. (1996)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Chiarella v. United States · Alexander v. United States · Pinter v. Dahl · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[w]e have not made an attempt to independently verify the various representations.' " Id. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the law firm was improper. 59 Under Rule 10b-5 ... the lack of an independent duty does not excuse a material lie. A subject of a tender offer or merger bid has no duty to issue a press release, but if it chooses to speak it must tell the truth about material issues. Although the lack of duty to investors means that Schwartz had no obligation to blow the whistle, and none to correct a letter he had not authorized to be circulated in the first place ... Schwartz cannot evade responsibility to the extent he permitted the promoters to release his letter. 60 Id. at 848 (citations omitted). 61 This analysis flows naturally from Eisenberg. There we held that an opinion is actionable if issued "with a lack of a genuine belief that the information disclosed was accurate and complete in all material respects.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) offers or sells a security ..., by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[w]e have not made an attempt to independently verify the various representations.'”
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.