Burke v. Jacoby’s Empirical Analysis
981 F.2d 1372 · 1992
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp. (1993), Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc. (1999)
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has moved for summary judgment on the ground that undisputed facts reveal that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the claim, on which element the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and the plaintiff has failed to come forth with evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to return a verdict in his or her favor on that element. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In connection with a claim of material omission ... `positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to discovery. All that is necessary is that the facts withheld be material....’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a misstatement or omission by the defendant; (2) as to a material fact; (3) plaintiff relied on the misstatement or omission; (4) defendant acted with scien-ter; (5) the misstatement or omission was made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities; and (6) plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the misstatement or omission.”
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.