Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
573 U.S. ___ (2014)


Facts

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (EPJ Fund) (plaintiff) brought suit against Halliburton Co. (Halliburton) (defendant), alleging that between June 3, 1999, and December 7, 2001, Halliburton made several misrepresentations regarding its revenue, a prospective merger, and potential liabilities. EPJ Fund filed a motion to certify as a class all investors that bought Halliburton common stock during this time period. Halliburton opposed the motion, arguing that the alleged misrepresentations had no impact on the price of Halliburton stock. Halliburton argued that this lack of price impact rebutted the presumption established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), that investors rely on company misstatements in the buying and selling of the company’s stock. EPJ Fund argued that such rebuttal may be done only at the merits stage of a lawsuit, not at the class-certification stage. The court of appeals held that Halliburton may not rebut this presumption of reliance at the class-certification stage. Halliburton petitioned for certiorari, arguing that Basic should be overturned. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.