38 Cited authorities

  1. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,613 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
  2. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,496 times   178 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
  3. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

    406 U.S. 128 (1972)   Cited 1,638 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
  4. Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.

    396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,018 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"
  5. Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Rlty. Dev. Corp.

    136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 842 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motion for judgment as a matter of law must be "sufficiently specific to alert the opposing party to the supposed deficiencies in her proof"
  6. In re Omnicom Group

    597 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “negative characterization of already-public information” does not constitute a corrective disclosure of new information
  7. O'Neill v. Krzeminski

    839 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that no rational juror could conclude that the defendant had an opportunity to intercede when "blows were struck in such rapid succession"
  8. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto

    677 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 225 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the complaint must sufficiently allege domestic purchases to state a claim under § 10(b)
  9. Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York

    295 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 243 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the securities fraud context, general disclaimers are insufficient to defeat reasonable reliance on material misrepresentations
  10. Castellano v. Young Rubicam, Inc.

    257 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 244 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to sustain a common law cause of action in the context of securities fraud would be inconsistent with the Attorney–General's exclusive enforcement powers under the Martin Act
  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 44,495 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment
  12. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,832 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"
  13. Section 5501 - Scope of review

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501   Cited 7,269 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the “shocks the conscience” standard “was relaxed in 1986 in tort actions, including the common personal injury and wrongful death actions in which additur and remittitur are most often seen”
  14. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,871 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
  15. Section R4111 - General and special verdicts and written interrogatories

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4111   Cited 274 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring itemized verdicts in malpractice and personal injury cases