Williams v. Salisbury Ice Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Levin v. Sinai Hosp. of Balto. (1946), Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp. (2003)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 Booth v. Robinson · Shaw v. Davis · Davis v. United States Electric Power & Light Co. · Du Puy v. Transportation & Terminal Co. · Supreme Lodge, Order of the Golden Chain v. Simering
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a word, if the question involved is one concerning the internal management of corporate affairs, void of acts ultra vires, fraudulent, or illegal, courts of equity will refrain from granting relief to a minority stockholder, or, as stated in McDoughall v. Gardiner, L.R. 1 Ch. Div. 21 (cited with approval in Shaw v. Davis, supra, and Davis v. Wright, supra): ‘Nothing connected with the normal internal disputes between the shareholders is to be made the subject of a bill by some one shareholder in behalf of himself and others, unless there be something illegal, oppressive or fraudulent — unless there is something ultra vires on the part of the company, qua company, or on the part of the majority of the company, so that they are not fit persons to determine it; . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The fact that three of the directors of a corporation are also directors of a competing corporation does not afford sufficient ground to presume against the legality and fairness of any transaction between the two companies.” “And that the acts complained of refer to dealings of a corporation with another corporation, or that the same person or persons are officers and hold majority of stock in both corporations, while the plaintiff is neither officer nor director in one of them, does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court of equity to interfere.””
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.