Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 F.3d 151 - Solow v. Stone

Solow v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis

163 F.3d 151 · 1998

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
May 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2017

1 federal appellate ·

100199820002010decided

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 994 F. Supp. 173 - Solow v. Stone · Solow v. PPI Enterprises (U.S.) Inc.

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The same choice-of-law analysis would not seem to apply to plaintiffs remaining claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract. These two claims are not directed against the administrators in their capacity as officers or directors [of the corporation], but rather as independent actors. Although this theory is at odds with the facts as described in the complaint, these two claims raise garden-variety tort issues. In tort cases, New York courts apply the law of the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the dispute. In this case, it appears that the acts giving rise to the aiding and abetting and tortious interference claims took place, in significant part, in New York____ In any case, it appears that there is no jurisdiction with an interest greater than New York’s with respect to these tort claims.”
    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.