Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 OHIOST3D 337 - Danziger v. Luse

Danziger v. Luse’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Martin v. D. B. Martin Co. · Bresnik v. Beulah Park Ltd. Partnership, Inc. · William Coale Development Co. v. Kennedy · State Ex Rel. United Brick & Tile Co. v. Wright · Woodworth v. Old Second National Bank

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “shareholders have a right at common law to inspect the records of a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporation in which they own stock when the parent corporation so controls and dominates the subsidiary that the separate corporate existence of the subsidiary should be disregarded”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In Ohio, `not every statute is to be read as an abrogation of the common law.”
    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.