Legal Opinion
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 19, 2005No. 03-932PublishedCited by 2,228 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
A private plaintiff who claims securities fraud must prove that the defendant’s fraud caused an economic loss. 109 Stat. 747,15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b)(4). We consider a Ninth Circuit holding that a plaintiff can satisfy this requirement— a requirement that courts call “loss causation” — simply by alleging in the complaint and subsequently establishing that “the price” of the security “on the date of purchase was inflated because of the misrepresentation.” 339 F. 3d 933, 938 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). In our view, the Ninth Circuit is wrong, both in respect to what a plaintiff…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,228 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Starr v. BacaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
2,223 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.