Kortum v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2025
15 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
Relies on Wilkes v. Springside Nursing Home, Inc. · Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C. · Brandt v. Somerville · Dahlberg v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERV. OF ND · Coleman v. Taub
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, whether Kortum was entitled to relief under N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-115. The district court did not make findings necessary to the determination of whether the Shareholders acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to Kortum. The district court made no finding regarding whether the Shareholders breached the fiduciary duty owed Kor-tum. The district court did not make any findings regarding whether the Agreement reflects the parties’ reasonable expectations at the venture’s inception. It did not make any findings regarding whether Kortum had a reasonable expectation of continued employment and return on her investment, and, if so, whether that expectation was frustrated by the Shareholders or whether they demonstrated a legitimate business purpose for their action. The district court’s decision was induced by an erroneous view of the law which led to an absence of findings on Kortum’s claims under N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1.” “We, therefore, reverse and remand for further fact-finding and application of N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1 to Kortum’s claims.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kortum v. Johnson““The typical attributes of a close corporation are that: (1) the shareholders are few in number, often only two or three; (2) the shareholders usually live in the same geographical area, know each other, and are well acquainted with each other’s business skills; (3) all or most of the shareholders are active in the business, usually serving as directors or officers or as key participants in some managerial capacity; and (4) there is no established market for the corporate stock.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Shareholders of close corporations owe one another a duty of utmost loyalty and good faith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Molbert v. Kornkven
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.