green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation
a plaintiff must allege a material misstatement . . . and that misstatement must be the cause of the plaintiff's loss . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re: Frontier Communications, Corp. Stockholders Litigation
a plaintiff must allege a material misstatement . . . and that misstatement must be the cause of the plaintiff's loss . . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Otero v. United States
See Peoples v. United States, 403 F.3d 844, 849 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 935 (2005) (“One who exercises the right of self-representation cannot contend that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Charles v. Lantz, No. 3:09-cv-588 (MRK), 2010 WL 5113803 , at *6 (D.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Merrill Lynch Research Rpts. SEC. Lit.
See Lentell v. Merrill Lynch, 396 F.3d 161, 178 (2d Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 935 , 126 S.Ct. 421 , 163 L.Ed.2d 321 (2005) (“Lentell”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meyer v. Seidel
A 10 duty to inquire arises when the circumstances "would 'suggest to a person of 11 ordinary intelligence the probability that he has been defrauded.'" Cruden, 957 F.2d 12 at 973 (quoting Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 1983) ("Armstrong") 13 (which was quoting Higgins v. Crouse, 147 N.Y. 411, 416 , 42 N.E. 6, 7 (1895) 14 ("Higgins")) (emphasis ours)); see, e.g., Koch, 699 F.3d at 151 n.3 (the duty arises 15 when "a person of ordinary intelligence would consider it 'probable' that fraud 16 had occurred"). 17 Since the Second Circuit follows the objective 18 standard for inquiry…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation
Strategies Fund, Ltd., 551 F.Supp.2d 210, 220 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 172 (2d Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 935 , 126 S.Ct. 421 , 163 L.Ed.2d 321 (2005) (plaintiffs must allege that the defendants “ ‘(1) made misstatements or omissions of material fact; (2) with scien-ter; (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of securities; (4) upon which plaintiffs relied; and (5) that plaintiffs’ reliance was the proximate cause of their injury.’ ” (quoting In re IBM Sec.
Knisley
v.
Medtronic, Inc.
v.
Medtronic, Inc.
No. 05-22.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 2005.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (2)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.