Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 988 FSUPP 375 - Press v. Chemical Investment Services Corp.

Press v. Chemical Investment Services Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
January 2010
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2010

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80199720002010decided

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. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company

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

  1. “the sale of a security as required under 10(b); and (3) the special pleading requirements for scienter under Rule 9(b) were met. See id. at 388-90. Discussion 12 Press maintains that he did plead all of the elements of fraud under the securities law sufficient to present to a jury, and the defendants' non-disclosure and denial of prompt access to the proceeds violated Section 10(b) and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-10. He argues that the district court applied an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Press's proceeds claim also fails to meet the special requirements for pleading scienter under Rule 9(b).... [T]he Court cannot find that the facts alleged in Press's Complaint concerning the date on which his proceeds became available raise a sufficient inference of fraudulent intent to survive a motion to dismiss.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sole function was to purchase and eventually pay over the proceeds of a single instrument specifically chosen by [Press],”
    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.