19 Kan. App. 2d 950 - Richards v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 district · 40 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A claim is said to be derivative if injury is either to the corporation directly or to the shareholder but mediated through the corporation. [Citations omitted.] A shareholder may only litigate as an individual if the wrong to the corporation inflicts a distinct and disproportionate injury on the shareholder, or if the action involves a contractual right of the shareholder which exists independently of any right of the corporation. [Citations omitted.] “Whether a cause of action is individual or derivative must be determined from the ‘nature of the wrong alleged’ and the relief, if any, which could result if plaintiff were to prevail.’ Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, 546 A.2d 348, 352 (Del. 1988).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 F. Supp. 2d 1254 - Carson v. Lynch Multimedia Corp. · 46 Kan. App. 2d 540 - Lightner v. Lightner

2. ““Therefore, we conclude that if a corporation is closely held, a court, in its discretion, may treat an action raising derivative claims as a direct action if it finds to do so will not (1) unfairly expose the corporation to a multiplicity of actions; (2) materially prejudice the interests of creditors in the corporation; or (3) interfere with a fair distribution of the recoveiy among all interested persons.” 19 Kan. App. 2d at 965 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 135 - Bold v. Spitcaufsky · Mynatt v. Collis

3. ““Any unfair transaction induced by a fiduciary relationship between the parties gives rise to a liability with respect to unjust enrichment of the fiduciary. Where such transaction is attacked, the burden of proof is on the fiduciary to establish the fairness of the transaction, and to this end he must fully disclose the facts and circumstances, and affirmatively show his good faith. [Citations omitted.] Where the fairness of the transaction is challenged, there must be an affirmative showing of fairness and good faith, the burden being upon the parties seeking to sustain such transactions to prove this by clear and satisfactory evidence. [Citations omitted.]” Newton v. Homblower, Inc., 224 Kan. 506, 518 , 582 P.2d 1136 (1978).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Becker Ex Rel. Becker v. Knoll · 40 Kan. App. 2d 1049 - Becker v. Knoll