Finch v. Warrior Cement Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently April 2007 · most notably 24 Del. Ch. 318 - Federal United Corp. v. Havender (1940), Elster v. American Airlines (1953)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 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 13 Del. Ch. 384 - Lofland v. Cahall · Cahall v. Lofland · Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood · Jones v. Missouri-Edison Electric Co. · Lauman v. Lebanon Valley Railroad
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Acquiescence and participation in an issue of stock, without consideration or for an insufficient consideration, will bar the right of the assenting stockholder to complain against its issuance. In this state the issuance of stock without consideration does not render the issue void, though an attempt to exempt the issue from liability to pay lawful consideration therefor is void. Du Pont et al. v. Ball et al., 11 Del.Ch. 430 , 106 A. 39 , 7 A.L.R. 955 ; Scully et al. v. Automobile Finance Co. et al., 12 Del.Ch. 174 , 109 A. 49 . The dictum found in Ellis v. Penn Beef Co., 9 Del.Ch. 213, 80 A. 666 , that stock issued without consideration is absolutely void appears thus to be not expressive of the law as was recognized by the Chancellor who uttered it in the later case of Scully et al. v. Automobile Finance Co., just referred to.””
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.