Flash v. Conn’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 371 · 1883
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 9 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1962 · most notably Huntington v. Attrill (1892), Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives (1892)
55 federal appellate · 9 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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.
Relationships
Relies on Burgess v. Seligman · Dennick v. Railroad Co. · Pollard v. Bailey · The Antelope the Vice-Consuls of Spain and Portugal
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But in this case the statute makes every stockholder individually liable for the debts of the company for an amount equal to the amount of his stock. This liability is fixed, and does not depend on the liability of other stockholders. There is no necessity for bringing in other stockholders or creditors.” Any creditor who has recovered judgment against the company can issue execution.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think this is a case where the construction of the state court is entitled to great, if not conclusive, weight with us. It is the settled construction of the law of the state, upon which the rights and'liabilities of a large number of its citizens must depend. If the liability of a stockholder under section 10 arises upon contract, the six-years limitation applies to it.: if the liability is in the nature of a penalty, the three-years limitation applies. It is clear that confusion and uncertainty would result should the state and federal courts place different constructions on the section. Such result ought, if possible, to be avoided. * * * If this were a case arising in the state of New York, we should,, therefore, follow the construction put upon the statute 'by the courts of that state.' The circumstance that the case comes here from the state of Florida should not leave the statute open to a different construction. It would be an anomaly for this court to put one interpretation on the statute in a case arising in New York, and a different interpretation in a case arising in Florida. Our conclusion, therefore, is that this action was not brought to enforce a liability in the nature of a penalty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“AH stockholders * * * shall bo severally individually liable to the creditors of the company * * to an amount equal to the amount of stock held by them respectively, for all debts, ete. No stockholder shall be personally liable for the i>ayment of any debt contracted by the company * * * unless a suit for the collection of the debt shall be brought against said company within one year after the debt shall become due; and no suit shall be brought against any stockholder * * ® until an execution against the company shall have been returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.