Bartlett v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““Plainly, there are but two parties to this controversy,—one, the directors and stockholders, wishing to retain the present management; and the other, the stockholders who wished to displace the present management; and all persons on the one side make common cause against all those on the other. The original bill was filed in the name of ‘George P. Bartlett, for and on behalf of any and all stockholders of the defendant corporation who are similarly situated, and who may wish to join in this action,’ and it is quite obvious that the principal defendants in the cross-bill gladly availed themselves of the benefit of the injunction. They took no steps to have it dissolved or modified, and are at one with the plaintiff named in the bill, and may be properly included among those ‘similarly situated’ with the plaintiff, for whose benefit the bill was brought. It will be observed that the chief ground upon which the injunction was asked and obtained was that the directors and officers of the company had neglected and refused to perform their legal duties as such officers, duties imposed upon them by the law of .the state and the by-laws of the company, and which they intentionally and willfully refused to perform for the very purpose of preventing the holding of the annual stockholders’ meeting for the election of directors. They could not well be named as plaintiffs in a bill seeking an injunction on the ground of their own dereliction of their official duties, and hence they were ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. Milliken