Laub v. Faessel’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · In re Disbarment of Gonzales · DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Industries, Inc. · Bernheim v. Litt
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Laub has not made any allegation that Faessel’s misrepresentation caused the loss incurred under any specific stock in Laub’s portfolio. He merely alleges that, due to Faessel’s deceit, he paid Faessel for fraudulent services from which he may have been induced to purchase as he did. The complaint makes no claim, however, that the asserted losses flow directly and foreseeably from Faessel’s misrepresentations, but rather, it appears, from the market forces to which all investors are subject.”
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.