Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Bolger’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.3d 1304 · 1993
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 (1995), In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices Litigation (1998)
30 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Darden v. Wainwright · Aronson v. Lewis · Marino v. Ortiz
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]laintiffs' attorneys and the defendants may settle in a manner adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs by exchanging a low settlement for high fees. Such a risk cautions against creating obstacles to challenging derivative action settlement agreements.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question can arise whether counsel for the organization may defend [a derivative] action. The proposition that the organization is the lawyer’s client does not alone resolve the issue. Most derivative actions are a normal incident of an organization’s affairs, to be defended by the organization’s lawyer like any other suit. However, if the claim involved serious charges of wrongdoing by those in control of the organization, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to the organization and the lawyer’s relationship with the board. In those circumstances, Rule 1.7 governs who should represent the directors and the organization.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[gjiven the agency, collective action, and information problems inherent in settlements of derivative litigation, and the broad view of objector standing embodied in Ace, we conclude [that the non-named plaintiff who objected below] had standing to appeal the district court order approving the settlement. Assuring fair and adequate settlements outweighs concerns that non-intervening objectors will render the representative litigation “unwieldy.” It is sufficient that [the non-named plaintiff] attended the settlement hearing and voiced before the district court the same objections he now raises before us on appeal.”
2 later decisions 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.