Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 DELCH 358 - In re the Receivership of International Radiator Co.

In re the Receivership of International Radiator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1914

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
7
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Cheff v. Mathes (1964), 36 Mass. App. Ct. 463 - MacKsey v. Egan (1994)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions

12019141920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As here used, this means the reduction of the amount of the assets of the company below the amount represented by the aggregate outstamdmg shares of the capital stock of the company. In other words, a corporation may use only its surplus for the purchase of shares of its own capital stock. ‘Capital’ does not, in this connection, mean the assets of the company, for, of course, the assets are reduced when any of it is used by a corporation to purchase shares of its own capital stock. It must have some other meaning then. The statute must mean, therefore, that the funds and property of the company shall not be used for the purchase * * * of its own capital stock when the value of its assets is less than the aggregate amount of all the shares of its capital stock.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * In substance, for $5,000, the company agreed to pay $7,500 from the proceeds of the sale by it of shares of its capital stock subscribed for by Harris. The legal effect of the agreement is, of course, that in case it was unable to sell the shares of stock it would buy them back, and the claim filed by Harris is necessarily based on this principle.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]ny one [sic] dealing with the corporation is bound to know the limitations put on it by the statute under which it was created.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.