Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that bespeaks caution doctrine was relevant in determining whether the prospectus as a whole was misleading as a matter of law, where alleged misrepresentations concerned matters of historical fact
• “It is well settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest securities fraud ..., but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”
• “It is well settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest securities fraud ..., but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”
• “It is well settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest securities fraud ..., but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”
• “It is well settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest securities fraud . . . , but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”
• “It is well settled that poor financial performance, standing alone, does not necessarily suggest securities fraud . . . , but could also be explained by poor management, general market conditions, or other events unrelated to fraud, creating a jury question on inquiry notice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Nicholas La Grasta, Domenico La Grasta, and Mauro La Grasta, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. First Union Securities, Inc.
  First Circuit· 2004-01-30· cited 688×
• Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-04-06· cited 248×
• Binder v. Gillespie
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-07-26· cited 146×
• Abromson v. American Pacific Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 1997-06-05· cited 127×
• Livid Holdings Ltd v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-08-02· cited 124×
• John W. Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., A Delaware Corporation
  Third Circuit· 2001-07-31· cited 121×
• In Re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Securities Litigation
  N.D. California· 1997-05-23· cited 96×
• ABF Capital Management v. Askin Capital Management, L.P.
  S.D. New York· 1997-01-24· cited 85×
• Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-10-04· cited 70×
• In Re Securities Litigation BMC Software, Inc.
  S.D. Texas· 2001-10-01· cited 45×
• In Re Immune Response Securities Litigation
  S.D. California· 2005-06-07· cited 43×
• Epstein v. Itron, Inc.
  E.D. Washington· 1998-01-22· cited 38×
• Knapp v. Ernst & Whinney
  Ninth Circuit· 1996-07-23· cited 37×
• Broudo v. Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2003-08-05· cited 35×
• In Re Metropolitan Securities Litigation
  E.D. Washington· 2007-11-05· cited 28×
• Greenwald v. Odom
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2012-02-09· cited 23×
• Berry v. Valence Technology, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-04-29· cited 22×
• Cabasug v. Crane Co.
  D. Hawaii· 2013-11-26· cited 20×
• Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-02-26· cited 19×
• In Re Cirrus Logic Securities Litigation
  N.D. California· 1996-11-01· cited 17×

Cites

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

• Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
  Supreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 3,533×
• Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
  Supreme Court· 1983-01-24· cited 1,450×
• Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson
  Supreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 1,199×
• Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1995-04-18· cited 1,015×
• David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. Davis
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-09-28· cited 950×
• In Re Worlds Of Wonder Securities Litigation
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-09-15· cited 307×
• Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,366 Benjamin A. Cook v. Avien, Inc., James F. Pritchard, Benjamin A. Cook v. Avien, Inc.
  First Circuit· 1978-03-28· cited 253×
• W. Kenneth Tregenza, James E. Haas, and Erwin B. Seegers v. Great American Communications Company and Shearson Lehman Brothers, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 1993-12-23· cited 248×
• R. Richard Bastian, III v. Petren Resources Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 1990-01-09· cited 216×
• Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-05-13· cited 213×
• McGonigle v. Combs
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-06-19· cited 162×
• Fecht v. Price Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-11-20· cited 160×
• Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,389 Irving A. Backman v. Polaroid Corporation, Irving A. Backman v. Polaroid Corporation
  First Circuit· 1990-08-02· cited 159×
• Rutstein v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1982-11-29· cited 98×
• Mosesian v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-03-07· cited 92×
• Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 1993-04-07· cited 80×
• Newman v. Worcester County Department of Social Services
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-15· cited 80×
• Kramas v. Security Gas & Oil Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1982-03-26· cited 70×
• Greenfield v. Heublein, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1984-08-29· cited 66×
• DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
  Seventh Circuit· 1990-12-14· cited 51×