Kohler v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
138 F.2d 440 · 1943
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat (1967), Subin v. Goldsmith (1955)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Southern Development Co of Nevada v. Silva · Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. · De Loach v. Crowley's, Inc. · Erk v. Glenn L. Martin Co. · United States v. City of Brookhaven
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * As to the Corporation, it is true that it owes the stockholder no duty of disclosure when he trades with others in its stock, and since he has access to the corporate books diligence might well lead him to them when he desires information from the Corporation. But if a corporation (which ordinarily does not deal in its own stock) for its own lawful purposes sets out to buy shares through its managing officers, and they by intentional misrepresentation and concealment deceive a selling stockholder who is ignorant of the truth, though he be an inactive director who ought to know, so that he is damaged, we see no reason why the corporation is not bound for the consequences. The deceit practiced by the corporation's high officers in the corporation's business and for its benefit must be taken to be a corporate act, and not ultra vires. 19 C.J.S., Corporations, § 1278(a)(b); 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, § 1125. If on trial it should appear that the transaction was a deceit committed by Jacobs for the benefit of the Corporation, both the Corporation and himself as an individual might be liable; because the action is not one to rescind a fraudulent transaction, or to recover an unjust enrichment, but for the damages done by a wilful tort for which a perpetrator may be held liable though he realized no benefit from it. United States v. City of Brookhaven, 5 Cir., 134 F.2d 442. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may be considered on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 [Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“admissions and interrogatories are in the nature of evidence”
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.