Hawkins v. Glenn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 federal appellate · 27 district · 114 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 397 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A stockholder is so far an integral part of the corporation that, in the view of the law, he is privy to the proceedings touching the body of which he is a member.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marin v. Augedahl · Scott v. Abbott

2. ““In Hamilton v. Glenn [ 85 Va. 901 , 9 S. E. 129 ], decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia March 14, 1889, and not yet reported in the official series, the rejection by the circuit court of Henrico county, Va., to which the suit in the Richmond chancery court had been removed, of a petition of certain stockholders to bo made parties, and for a rehearing of the cause, came under review in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, and that court, among other things, said: ‘The first question raised in this court is that the appellants are entitled to be made parties to the suit of Glenn v. National Express & Transportation Company, because the relief sought is against them. The suit of Glenn v. National Express & Transportation Company is a creditors? suit against a corporation, and by the terms of its charter and the laws of this state applicable to said company it was lawfully sued as such by its corporate name, and the individual stockholders were not proper parties to such a suit; the president and directors being by their selection their representatives for this purpose. The appellants admit this as to any live and gouig corporation, and claim, as the corporation is dead, that by its deed of trust it assigned to trustees and ceased to exist; that in a suit by a creditor, or by creditors generally, the suit against the Corporation is in fact one not against the corporation, but against them as stockholders, and they are not represented by the company nor by the trustee”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Glenn v. Marbury · Harris-Woodbury Lumber Co. v. Coffin

3. ““Some further observations may not inappropriately be added. Unpaid subscriptions are assets, but have frequently been treated by courts of equity as if impressed with a trust sub modo, upon the view that, the corporation being insolvent, the existence of creditors subjects these liabilities to the rules applicable to funds to be accounted for as held in trust, and that therefore, statutes of limitation do not commence to run in respect to them until the retention of the money has become adverse by a refusal to pay upon due requisition. “But the conclusion as to the statute need not be rested on that ground; for, although the occurrence of the necessity of resorting to unpaid stock may be said to fix the liability of the subscriber to respond, he cannot be allowed to insist that the amount required to discharge him became instantly payable though unascertained, and though there was no request, or its equivalent, for payment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co. · Slaughter v. Brown