Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 959 F.2d 521 - Akin v. Q-L Investments, Inc.

Akin v. Q-L Investments, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

959 F.2d 521 · 1992

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp. (1994)

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

4701992200020102020decided

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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States

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

  1. “when they make affirmative statements on which they know the investors will rely.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Ivan A. Anixter Blanche Dickenson Dolly K. Yoshida, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Home-Stake Production Company, an Oklahoma Corporation Home-Stake 1971 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1970 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1969 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1968 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1967 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1966 Program Operating Corporation Home-Stake 1965 Program Operating Corporation Robert S. Trippet E.M. Kunkel Thomas A. Landrith J.D. Metcalfe H.B. Gutelius H.L. Fitzgerald, and Wynema Anna Cross, of the Estate of Norman C. Cross, Jr., A.M. Anderson Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, as Trustee for Merl McHenry Joseph A. Buda, Arthur Bueche, George V.T. And Helen Burgess Dewey J. Cali William H. Colquhoun S.W. Corbin Robert B. Coburn Vigil B. Day William H. Dennler Mario Dimartino Stella Dimartino John M. Evans Margaret C. Everett Isador H. Finkelstein Joseph H. Gauss H.W. Gouldthorpe Ralph Hart James J. Hayes Earl D. Hilburn Joseph E. Horak Gerald A. Hoyt Richard M. Hurst Ralph Iannucci Emily Iannucci Milton F. Kent Howard Kicherer Elizabeth Kicherer John Kokoszka Millie B. Lassing Joseph Levin Marie F. Levin John D. Lockton Dennis G. Lyons Ferdinand F. McAllister Russell W. McFall James Madden Albert Manganelli Nicholas A. Marchese Stanley A. Marks John G. Martin C.W. Moeller Andrew Overby Carl E. Palermo Frank A. Palermo Roy T. Parker, Jr. Bruce M. Robertson D.D. Scarff M.L. Scarff A.E. Schubert William R. Smart E. Starr Janet G. Stewart Gerald Toomey Paul Townsend Vernon Underwood H.B. Waldron, Jr. Ted B. Westfall v. Home-Stake Production Company, an Oklahoma Corporation Home-Stake 1970 Program Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Robert S. Trippet Harry Heller Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, a Partnership Thomas A. Landrith, Jr. E.M. Kunkel McAfee Taft, Mark, Bond, Rucks, and Woodruff, a Professional Corporation and Its Professional Employees and Attorneys and Partners, Their Successors and Assigns, and Wynema Anna Cross, of the Estate of Norman C. Cross, Jr., A.M. Anderson Richard J. Anton Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, as Trustee for Merl McHenry E.P. Bernuth, Sophie K. Bernuth, Joseph A. Buda, George and Helen Burgess Dewey Cali Robert B. Coburn Coburn & Libby, Inc. Edward v. Coonan S.W. Corbin William H. Dennler Mario Dimartino Stella Dimartino John Evans Margaret C. Everett L.L. Ferguson Isador H. Finkelstein H.W. Gouldthorpe George L. Haller Jack Hanson Ralph Hart F.H. Holt Joseph E. Horak Gerald A. Hoyt Howard G. Kicherer Elizabeth C. Kicherer John Kokoszka Millie B. Lassing Joseph Levin Marie Levin John D. Lockton D.W. Lynch D.B. Lynch Dennis G. Lyons Ferdinand F. McAllister Russell McFall James F. Madden Albert Manganelli Nicholas Marchese Stanley A. Marks C.W. Moeller William H. Mortensen Carl Olson Patricia Olson Carl Palermo Frank Palermo Roy T. Parker Helen M. Reeder D.D. Scarff M.L. Scarff Richard Scott Louis P. Singer William R. Smart J. Stanford Smith G. Curtis Stewart Paul Townsend Vernon Underwood Ted B. Westfall J. Howard Wood Sidney Woolwich Murray Zimmerman v. Home-Stake Production Company, an Oklahoma Corporation Home-Stake 1969 Program Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Robert S. Trippet E.M. Kunkel Thomas A. Landrith, Jr. Harry Heller William Blum Simpson Thacher and Bartlett William D. Lewis Richard A. Ganong Lewis & Ganong, a Partnership, and Wynema Anna Cross, of the Estate of Norman C. Cross, Jr. · Anixter
  2. “reliance is not an element of mail fraud”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALSO CHARGED THESE DEFENDANTS WITH AIDING AND ABETTING A VIOLATION OF RULE 10(B)(5) [sic], A CLAIM OF AIDING AND ABETTED [sic] A VIOLATION OF RULE 10(B)(5) MAY BE ASSERTED AGAINST ANY PARTY WHO KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY RENDERS SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO VIOLATES RULE 10(B)(5). IN ORDER TO PROVE LIABILITY OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A VIOLATION OF RULE 10(B)(5), PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THE FOLLOWING 3 ELEMENTS: FIRST, THAT SOME OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY VIOLATED RULE 10(B)(5). PLAINTIFFS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE SHOWN TO PROVE A VIOLATION OF RULE- 10(B)(5) BY SUCH OTHER PERSON. AND I HAVE JUST INSTRUCTED YOU ON THAT. SECOND, WHAT THE DEFENDANT — THAT THE DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGEDLY AIDED AND ABETTED THE VIOLATION OF RULE 10(B)(5) POSSESSED A GENERAL AWARENESS OF THE WRONG AND HIS ROLE IN FURTHERING IT; AND, THIRD, THAT THE ALLEGED AIDER AND ABETTOR KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY RENDERED SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY WHICH VIOLATED RULE 10(B)(5). RECKLESSLY MEANS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE STANDARDS OF ORDINARY CARE WHICH PRESENTS A DANGER OF MISLEADING BUYERS THAT IS EITHER KNOWN TO THE DEFENDANT OR IS SO OBVIOUS THAT THE DEFENDANTS [sic] MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SIMPLY CARELESS OR NEGLIGENT. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT A PERSON IS THINKING, YOU MUST DETERMINE KNOWLEDGE OF F”
    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.