Bristow v. Oklahoma

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a WSJ article analyzing publicly available Medicare records could plausibly constitute a corrective, and not merely confirmatory, disclosure
• explaining that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and rejecting “an overly rigid rule” that each corrective disclosure must lead to a “discovery of actual fraud”
• holding, on a motion to dismiss, that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that a Wall Street Journal article “based on publicly available Medicare records,” was not a corrective disclosure, because (1
• holding, on a motion to dismiss, that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that a Wall Street Journal article “based on publicly available Medicare records,” was not a corrective disclosure, because (1
• explaining “the standard of relevance in an evidentiary context is not a steep or a difficult one to satisfy”
• combining five events, such as resignations and articles, which “collectively constitute[d] and culminate[d] in a corrective disclosure that adequately plead[ed] loss causation” (alterations added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).