Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 FSUPP 781 - Smith v. Sperling

Smith v. Sperling’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 1973
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1973

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

100195319601970decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1359 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co

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

  1. ““For a corporation to be ‘in antagonistic hands,’ * * * or to have a ‘hostile attitude,’ * * * such as would permit alignment on the side against its presumptive financial interests, surely requires more than a mere argument or difference of opinion between the corporation and the suing stockholder as to the desirability of bringing the suit. Patently, if difference of opinion were all the ‘controversy’ required to be shown between the stockholder and his corporation in order to preclude alignment of the latter with the plaintiff-stockholder, then there can be no occasion for all the pages of discussion of corporate domination or control, since every stockholder’s derivative suit is by definition predicated upon the assumption that the corporation has refused to sue.””
    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.