Case Citator › Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr.

Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr.

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
253 F.3d 423
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr. is abrogated on its method of combining falsity and scienter into one pleading inquiry. In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., the Supreme Court treated those as separate requirements under the securities fraud pleading statute.
More on how this was screened

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano later applied the separate approach, and the Ninth Circuit expressly recognized the conflict in Glazer Capital Management, L.P. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. The confirmed treatment is listed below. All 44 flagged citations have been read; courts continue to rely on other parts of Ronconi.

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 Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr.; 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 Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr.?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court's separate falsity and scienter requirements displaced Ronconi's practice of merging them into one pleading inquiry.

    Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Under the PSLRA’s heightened pleading instructions, any private securities complaint alleging that the defendant made a false or misleading statement must: (1) “specify each statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading,” 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b)(l); and (2) “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,” § 78u-4(b)(2).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alfred Ronconi v. C. Raymond Larkin, Jr. 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