Gluck v. CellStar Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably In Re: Cendant Corporation Litigation (2001), 151 F. Supp. 2d 371 - Rieger ex rel. Walters v. Drabinsky (2001)
1 federal appellate · 17 district ·
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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on In re Donnkenny Inc. Securities Litigation · Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc. · In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation · In Re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation · In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defense of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“detract from the [PSLRA’s] fundamental goal of client control, as it would inevitably delegate more control and responsibility to the lawyers for the class and make the class representative more reliant on the lawyers.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘Co-Lead Plaintiff might be appropriate in certain situations, such as two institutional investors with roughly equal economic losses in a particular case, or two or more smaller investors with roughly equal interests where there is no plaintiff with a significantly larger interest than all other plaintiffs. Here, however, where the interest of one institutional investor in this litigation far exceeds the interests of other purported plaintiffs, nothing persuades the Court to appoint co-Lead Plaintiffs.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.