Weissman v. Weener’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “We noted [in Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir.1989),] the important purpose served by the rule denying standing to sue to those who suffer only derivative injury. “When the injury is derivative, recovery by the indirectly injured person is a form of double counting. ‘Corporation’ is but a collective noun for real people—investors, employees, suppliers with rights and others.” Id. at 1335-36 . A blow that costs “the firm” $100 injures one or more of those persons. If, however, we allow the corporation to litigate in its own name and collect the whole sum (as we do), we must exclude attempts by the participants in the venture to recover for their individual injuries. A fee that causes $100 worth of damage to “the corporation”, and therefore reduces the value of investors’ stock by $100, does not cause a total injury of $200—the net loss is $100, and everyone is made whole by an award of that sum to the firm. To avoid double counting courts must either restrict recoveries to the directly-injured party or attempt to apportion the recovery according to who bears the effects. Id. at 1336 . Because divvying up the loss would require a Herculean effort, we simply allow the firm to recover. Once the firm is made whole, the derivative victims are by the same token compensated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fujimoto v. Au

2. “The [real party in interest] rule is similar to, though distinct from, the requirement that the plaintiff have standing to sue, in that both standing and real party in interest `are used to designate a plaintiff who possesses a sufficient interest in the action to entitle him to be heard on the merits.' 6A Charles Alan Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1542 (2d ed.1990).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 973 So. 2d 981 - Kirk v. Pope

3. “is suing not the bank [collecting on the guarantee] but rather the third party whose alleged wrongdoing is said to have driven the corporation into bankruptcy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Labovitz v. Washington Times Corp.