38 Cited authorities

Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,550 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”
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,458 times 177 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,627 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.
396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 998 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"
Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Rlty. Dev. Corp.
136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 822 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"
In re Omnicom Group
597 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 325 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “negative characterization of already-public information” does not constitute a corrective disclosure of new information
O'Neill v. Krzeminski
839 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 625 times
Holding that no rational juror could conclude that the defendant had an opportunity to intercede when "blows were struck in such rapid succession"
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto
677 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 216 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the complaint must sufficiently allege domestic purchases to state a claim under § 10(b)
Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York
295 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 237 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the securities fraud context, general disclaimers are insufficient to defeat reasonable reliance on material misrepresentations
Castellano v. Young Rubicam, Inc.
257 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 240 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
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,425 times 66 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
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 13,603 times 62 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Section 5501 - Scope of review
N.Y. CPLR 5501 Cited 7,203 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”
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,719 times 26 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
Section R4111 - General and special verdicts and written interrogatories
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4111 Cited 271 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring itemized verdicts in malpractice and personal injury cases

Liberty Media Corp., et al v. Vivendi Universal, et al

38 Cited authorities

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”

Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

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"

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"

Holding that the “negative characterization of already-public information” does not constitute a corrective disclosure of new information

Holding that no rational juror could conclude that the defendant had an opportunity to intercede when "blows were struck in such rapid succession"

Holding that the complaint must sufficiently allege domestic purchases to state a claim under § 10(b)

Holding that, in the securities fraud context, general disclaimers are insufficient to defeat reasonable reliance on material misrepresentations

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

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Allowing "renewed motion"

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”

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

Requiring itemized verdicts in malpractice and personal injury cases