Case Citator › Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.

Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
First Circuit
Citation
82 F.3d 1194
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
1999–2025
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. was superseded in part by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's stronger pleading requirement for scienter. The First Circuit held in Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc. that a complaint must now raise a strong inference of scienter.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later declined to adopt Shaw's separate extreme departure test for disclosing interim results in that circuit. Other Shaw rules continue to be applied. All 44 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

44 later cases cite Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.; 44 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The First Circuit held that the federal securities statute displaced Shaw's reasonable inference formulation for pleading scienter.

    Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc. · First Circuit · filed

    A mere reasonable inference is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. ... "Reasonable inference" language was used in ... Shaw, 82 F.3d at 1224; ... It is clear that scienter allegations now must be judged under the "strong inference" standard at the motion to dismiss stage.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Ninth Circuit rejected Shaw's extreme departure test for the duty to disclose interim results and applied materiality instead.

    Sodha v. Golubowski · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Because that question is now squarely presented, we find the Second Circuit’s reasons for rejecting Shaw’s “extreme departure” test persuasive, and we hold that the Shaw test is not the law of this circuit. Instead, the proper test for the duty to disclose is the test for materiality.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace