Anderson v. Bundy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 6 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is clearly the law, at least in most jurisdictions, and certainly in Virginia, that no direct action lies to a creditor of a corporation against its directors, who are its agents (except in special instances of which this case is not one), for improper performance or failure in performance of their duties. This is a right belonging to the corporation only, or its legal successors to the right. The creditors must sue, not for any direct right of action in them, but in the right of the corporation, after the corporation, or its proper representatives, have refused to act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Terry v. Federal Insurance (In re R.J. Reynolds—Patrick County Memorial Hospital, Inc.) · In Re RJ Reynolds

2. ““ T think the statute of limitations applicable to the cause of action is five years (Code, section 5818). It was so held in Winston v. Gordon, 115 Va. 899 , 80 S. E. 756 . But it is urged in defendants’ brief that there has been a change of statute since that decision, that change being that section 1105e(35) of the Code of 1904, then in force, provided that the two-year limitation was on ‘any liability imposed by the provisions of this act,’ while the present limitation provided by section 3816 applies to ‘any liability imposed by the laws of this State.’ It is argued that this change signifies an intention to make the two year limitation applicable to all acts of directors as such. “ T do not believe the change has that significance. I doubt that it represents anything more than a change in phraseology to meet the situation caused by inserting the provision as a part of the Code enactment, and causing it to lose its identity as an act. This was originally a part of the large body of corporation law appearing, as one act in the Acts of 1902-03-04, Extra Session (chapter 270). If there had been a purpose to change the law as stated in Winston v. Gordon , it is likely the revisors would have noted the change and stated the purpose. Section 1105e (35) is not referred to in Winston v. Gordon . I think section 3816 still refers to the positive duties required of directors by the statute law.’ ” * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshall v. Fredericksburg Lumber Co.