Elgart v. Mintz’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1984 · most notably Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey (1951), Mills v. Jacobs (1938)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. · First Nat Bank of Boston v. State of Maine · Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corp. · Simpson v. . Jersey City Contracting Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Concededly, the stock certificate here involved has not been seized by the attaching officer or surrendered to the corporation which issued it; but it is claimed that the transfer of that certificate has been enjoined and that, therefore, actual seizure is not necessary. But it will be noted that under the provisions of section 13 of the Uniform Stock Transfer act it is the ‘transfer by the holder’ which must be enjoined. In the instant case it is only the transfer by the corporation which has been enjoined, . . . The statute requires an effective injunction. . . . [Citing cases.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Except where a certificate is lost or destroyed, such corporation shall not be compelled to issue a new certificate for the stock until the old certificate is surrendered to it. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘It is evident that the restraint upon the . . . company does not serve the levy under the statute, for it was not the holder of the certificates. . . . The efficacy of the writ must be found in its lawful execution. The levy must be self-sufficient. If not, it falls. Injunctions can neither amplify the attachment under the writ, were it valid, nor validate it if it be deficient. If the injunction against the . . . company was intendéd as an auxiliary means of forestalling the holder from transferring the stock, it was, in the absence of a valid levy, a misuse of power.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.