Seidel v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
12 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2018
12 district · 3 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 Conley v. Gibson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Burks v. Lasker
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, beneficiaries should not put on blinders to such obvious signals as publicly filed documents, annual and quarterly reports, proxy statements, and SEC filings. Here, the Court concludes that the public documents, which form the basis of many of Plaintiffs claims, could have provided Plaintiff with adequate notice of any alleged misconduct by Defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“persons of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have facts sufficient to put them on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of the injury”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Norman v. Elkin
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.