Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 Cal. 407 - Snediker v. Ayers

Snediker v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
March 1942
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1942

7 state decisions

2019051910192019301940decided

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 Schnittger v. Old Home Consolidated Mining 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The above section applies to the directors of a corporation, but it was not intended thereby, nor is there anything in any other provision of the law which makes a transaction between a director and his corporation in which the former had a personal interest ipso facto void. Such a transaction is subject to rigid scrutiny and is voidable for any fraud or violation of the duties of their trust on the part of the directors. But it will not be held void where it is shown that the directors’ actions were open and aboveboard, and taken in good faith without any purpose of fraud. (Schnitt ger v. Old Home etc. Min. Co., 144 Cal. 603 [ 78 Pac. 9 ], and cases therein cited.) “The plaintiff alleged fraud and collusion on the part of the directors, and the burden was on him to establish these allegations. The findings show the contrary. ’ ’ ('See, also, Kleinsasser v. McNamara, 129 Cal. App. 49 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 423 ] ; Ballantine, Manual of Corporation Law and Practice, 1930 ed., 300.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It violates no principle of law or equity to permit the judgment-creditor, even though he be a director of the debtor corporation, to become the purchaser at the execution sale of the corporation property.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.