Loft v. Guth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Now the evidence in the case sub judice does not warrant the view that any one of these features may be affirmed as existing here. The brief review of some of its salient features which I have herein-before made, shows the opposite of every one of them to have been the fact. That Loft had the means to finance and establish the business is clearly demonstrated. In every aspect of essential fact it did so. That Guth did not use his own funds and risk his own resources in acquiring and developing the Pepsi business is equally demonstrated. He was in fact unable to do so. I dismiss from consideration his claim of a paroi contract of guaranty with Loft by which he engaged to save it harmless from any loss it might suffer from its advances. I conclude that no such guaranty was given. Even if it was, it was worthless. That the business of producing Pepsi-Cola syrup was in the line of Loft’s business and of practical and not theoretical interest to it, is shown by the fact that Loft was engaged in manufacturing fountain syrups of numerous kinds to supply its own extensive needs. Indeed the outstanding justification which Guth offers for his utilization of Loft’s resources on the scale he did, was Loft’s need for a constant and reliable supply of Pepsi-Cola syrup. The former directors now allied with Guth, a minority of the former board, offer a like justification for their alleged approval of Guth’s acts in plunging Loft deep into the Pepsi venture. It does not become either Guth or”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guth v. Loft, Inc.

2. “* * * Guth was in control of Loft. He selected every one of its directors. * * * It is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that Guth was in an unquestioned position of dominance in the affairs of Loft. He had won control of the corporation after an intense and bitter contest for proxies from the stockholders in March of 1930.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mayer v. Adams

3. ““ ‘ . . . . the law will not allow him to divert the opportunity from the corporation and embrace it as his own. . ’ ” (citing Loft, Inc. v. Guth, 23 Del.Ch. 138 , 2 A.2d 225, 238-39 (1938))”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alco Communications, Inc. v. Brown (In Re Brown)