Marco v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc. (1973), International Electronics Corp. v. Flanzer (1975)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Laskey Bros. of West Virginia, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · 113 F. Supp. 265 - T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · United States v. Standard Oil Company · Laskey Bros. of W. Va., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Circuit Management Corp.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile a board of directors in office has access to such [corporate] files and records it by no means can be assumed that the directors know everything in the files and records of the corporation, or if they did that they retained such knowledge. There may well be secrets and confidences in the files of counsel which are in fact wholly unknown to the former directors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The attempt to set aside these transactions upon the ground of fraud necessarily implies an accusation by the plaintiff not only against the directors who were clients of Messrs. Sullivan & Cromwell, but against Messrs. Sullivan & Cromwell themselves in their professional capacity as the lawyers in these transactions. Moreover, these accusations are direct as well as implied. The then senior partner of Sullivan & Cromwell is named as a defendant in the action and is alleged to have been a participant in the frauds charged. It is true that he is not expressly charged with fraud in his professional capacity. But his acts as a director cannot be separated from- his acts as a member of the firm who were general counsel for the corporation. The line between the two is entirely too fine to permit the professional obligation as a lawyer and the fiduciary obligation as a director to be placed in convenient separate boxes.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s confidences. This duty outlasts the lawyer’s employment, and extends as well to his employees; and neither • of them should accept employment which involves or may involve the disclosure or use of these confidences, either for the private advantage of the lawyer or his employees or to the disadvantage of the client, without his knowledge and consent, and even though there are other available sources of such information. A lawyer should not continue employment when he discovers that his obligation prevents the performance of his full duty to his former or to his new client.”
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.