Ninth Circuit· 4/29/1999

Berry v. Valence Technology, Inc.

Citations

175 F.3d 699
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3073
99 Daily Journal DAR 3992
43 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 983
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8147
1999 WL 249207

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that such a statement “certainly does not excite inquiry into the possibility of fraud.”
noting that it would have needed to “remand the case to the district court to determine when, if ever, a reasonably diligent investor should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud”
“If we were to adopt inquiry notice, we would agree with the Tenth Circuit’s formulation of that standard.”
“First, did the... article raise sufficient suspicion of fraud to cause a reasonable investor to investigate the matter further?”
“[W]e need not decide whether actual discovery or inquiry notice applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bright, Fletcher, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.