Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 MISC 835 - McNulty v. W.& J.Sloane

McNulty v. W.& J.Sloane’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
4
states following
September 1973
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1973

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

601945195019601970decided

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 Combes v. Getz · People v. . O'Brien · 21 Del. Ch. 391 - Keller v. Wilson Co. Inc. · Looker v. Maynard · Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

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

  1. ““ * * * The courts have realized that the problem was a knotty one and that it involved important questions of public policy. On the one hand, there was the interest of the state, in the welfare of corporations organized under its sanction, in permitting them a certain flexibility in their capital structure to meet business and financial needs; on the other hand there was the concern to protect the rights of small investors, chargeable with an unrealistic, constructive knowledge of the ‘reserved power’ of the Legislature. “There was the possibility of improper domination by large stockholders to be weighed against the power of a small stockholder to force the majority to buy his stock at exorbitant prices and to threaten to use his voting rights in such a way as to injure the business of the corporation and thus impair the rights of others. There was the necessity for allowing financial rejuvenation and at the same time there was the realization that there might result the possible enrichment of a junior class of stockholders at the expense of a senior class. In short, the problem was one of balancing intertwining and conflicting interests and of determining what was conducive to the good of society.””
    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.