Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
E590647
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6409125 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Context triple: [Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relatedCaseLaw, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta]
-
A.
MCI v. AT&T
MCI v. AT&T was a landmark U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the telecommunications industry that challenged AT&T’s monopoly and helped open the long-distance market to competition.
-
B.
United States v. AT&T
United States v. AT&T was a landmark antitrust lawsuit in which the U.S. government forced the breakup of the Bell System telecommunications monopoly in the early 1980s.
-
C.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
D.
United States v. Skilling
United States v. Skilling is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling that significantly narrowed the scope of the federal “honest services” fraud statute.
-
E.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that states may grant broader free speech rights in private shopping centers under their own constitutions than those guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Target entity description: Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
-
A.
MCI v. AT&T
MCI v. AT&T was a landmark U.S. antitrust lawsuit in the telecommunications industry that challenged AT&T’s monopoly and helped open the long-distance market to competition.
-
B.
United States v. AT&T
United States v. AT&T was a landmark antitrust lawsuit in which the U.S. government forced the breakup of the Bell System telecommunications monopoly in the early 1980s.
-
C.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
D.
United States v. Skilling
United States v. Skilling is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling that significantly narrowed the scope of the federal “honest services” fraud statute.
-
E.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that states may grant broader free speech rights in private shopping centers under their own constitutions than those guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
securities law case ⓘ |
| citation | 552 U.S. 148 ⓘ |
| concurrence | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2008-01-15 ⓘ |
| decisionType | precedential opinion ⓘ |
| defendantType | corporate vendors ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 06-43 ⓘ |
| effect |
limited liability of vendors and business partners in private Rule 10b-5 actions
ⓘ
narrowed the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits against secondary actors ⓘ |
| holding |
Scheme liability under Section 10(b) does not extend to vendors whose deceptive acts were not disclosed to the investing public
ⓘ
Secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable in private actions under Section 10(b) unless investors relied on the secondary actors’ own deceptive conduct ⓘ |
| issue | Whether secondary actors can be held liable in private securities fraud suits for participating in a deceptive scheme without making public statements relied on by investors ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| keyRequirement | investors must show reliance on the defendant’s own deceptive conduct or statements ⓘ |
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalArea |
federal securities law
ⓘ
securities fraud ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | affirmed ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts, Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
John G. Roberts Jr.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
|
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| petitioner | Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC ⓘ |
| plaintiffType | institutional investor ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the Eighth Circuit in a securities fraud class action ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
ⓘ
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver ⓘ Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
private right of action under Section 10(b)
ⓘ
reliance in securities fraud ⓘ scheme liability ⓘ secondary actor liability ⓘ |
| respondent |
Motorola, Inc.
ⓘ
linked to:
Motorola
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
SEC Rule 10b-5
ⓘ
linked to:
Rule 10b-5
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2007 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Description of subject: Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
→
relatedCaseLaw
→
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
ⓘ