Nathan Kaplan Edith Citron Martin Philip v. Rhonda Anderson Marks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 2 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The application [of Glendora] was denied on the ground that the movant was a layperson and not entitled to appear pro se to pursue a stockholders’ derivative suit. See Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.1997). As an alternative reason for denial of the motion, the motions panel noted that only parties may appeal from an order or judgment citing, Marino and Felzen. We may disregard the alternative reason because it is dictum, because such an order is without precedential authority, and because we are entitled to revisit the decision of a motions panel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 123 F. Supp. 2d 169 - In Re Texaco Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

2. “Although the general rule is that only a party of record may appeal a judgment, a nonparty may appeal when the nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court's judgment”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Brennan

3. “[i]t is by now also well established that an award of counsel fees is only justified where the derivative action results in a substantial non-monetary benefit to the corporation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Albert Zucker