152 Ohio App. 3d 672 - Carlson v. Rabkin’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 177 Ohio App. 3d 262 - Blair v. McDonagh (2008), Auletta v. Ortino (2008)
2 federal appellate · 19 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 Conley v. Gibson · O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson · Crosby v. Beam · Adair v. Wozniak
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The demand requirement is essentially a requirement that the shareholder exhaust his or her intracorporate remedies before going to court with a derivative suit. The corporate management must be given the first opportunity to institute the litigation since, as a general principle, the responsibility for determining whether a corporation should use the courts to enforce a cause of action is, like other business questions, ordinarily a matter of internal management left to the discretion of the directors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that directors can make an unbiased, independent business judgment about whether it would be in the corporation's best interests to sue some or all of the other directors. Thus, courts have consistently rejected the idea that demand is always futile when the directors are targeted as the wrongdoers in the suit the shareholders wish the corporation to bring.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) spell out the efforts made to have directors or the other shareholders take the action demanded, (2) explain why they failed in this effort or did not make it, and (3) show that they `fairly and adequately' represent the interests of other shareholders `similarly situated.'”
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.