Henley v. Slone’s Empirical Analysis
961 F.2d 23 · 1992
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor (2000), Dodds v. Cigna Securities, Inc. (1993)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia · Ceres Partners v. GEL Associates · Welch III v. Cadre Capital · National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The limitation period for any private civil action implied under section 78j(b) of this title [§ 10(b) of the 1934 Act] that was commenced on or before June 19, 1991, shall be the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction, including principles of retroactivity, as such laws existed on June 19, 1991.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“announced a uniform limitations period of the earlier of one year from the date the fraud was or reasonably should have been discovered or three years from the date of the transaction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Despite the expectation of some supporters of section 27A that it would routinely apply a more generous state of federal common law limitations period to all suits pending on June 19, 1991, we see no escape from the clear statutory language requiring the application of “the laws applicable to the jurisdiction, including principles of retroactivity.” In Connecticut, where Henley’s suit was filed, that means the one-year/three-year rule of Ceres Partners applied sparingly in light of the retroactivity principles enunciated in Welch I; if it would be inequitable under Welch I to apply Ceres Partners to Henley’s suit, then the more generous limitations period of prior state law applies.”
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.