Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 U.S. 373 - Henley v. Myers

Henley v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis

215 U.S. 373 · 1910

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2013 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), Allied Structural Steel Company v. Spannaus (1978)

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 12 states

42019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Edwards v. Kearzey · McCullough v. Commonwealth of Virginia

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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We hold that the defendants acquired their stock subject, necessarily, to the power of the state, having due regard ,to the legal rights of parties, to regulate the transfer of stocks in its own corporations. * * * “Equally without merit is the contention that the statute of 1899 impaired the obligations of the stoekhqlder’s contract, in that it substituted for individual actions against them a suit in equity by a receiver appoint-; ed after judgment against the corporation. In becoming stockholders, the defendants did not acquire a vested right in any particular mode of procedure adopted for the purpose of enforcing their liability as stockholders. It is a_ well-established doctrine that mere methods of procedure in actions on contract, that do not affect the substantial rights of parties, are always within the control of the state. It is to be assumed that parties make their contracts with reference to the existence of such power in the state.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The stockholders of every corporation, except railroad corporations or corporations for religious or charitable purposes, shall be liable to the creditors thereof for any unpaid subscriptions, and in addition thereto for an amount equal to the par value of the stock owned by them, such liability to be considered an asset of the corporation in the event of insolvency, and to be collected by a receiver for the benefit of all creditors.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““No stockholder shall be liable to pay debts of the corporation, beyond the amount due on his stock, and an additional amount equal to the stock owned by him.””
    1 later decision 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.