224 Wis. 2d 856 - Einhorn v. Culea’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Aronson v. Lewis · Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago · 113 Wis. 2d 61 - Sweet v. Berge · 218 Wis. 2d 180 - State v. Phillips · 95 Wis. 2d 141 - In Matter of Estate of Dejmal
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Whether a director is independent for purposes of this section may not be determined solely on the basis of any one or more of the following factors: (a) The nomination or election of the director by persons who are defendants in the derivative proceeding or against whom action is demanded. (b) The naming of the director as a defendant in the derivative proceeding or as a person against whom action is demanded. (c) The approval by the director of the act being challenged in the derivative proceeding or demand if the act resulted in no personal benefit to the director.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Einhorn v. Culea“180.0744. Dismissal (1) The court shall dismiss a derivative proceeding on motion by the corporation if the court finds that [a special litigation committee]. . .has determined, acting in good faith after conducting a reasonable inquiry upon which its conclusions are based, that maintenance of the derivative proceeding is not in the best interests of the corporation....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Einhorn v. Culea“while [Bonk] did receive a bonus at the same meeting of the board where Mr. Culea received his bonus, it does not appear that there was a quid pro quo or any other type of linkage between the two bonuses. In fact, it should be noted that the plaintiff [Einhorn] has not made Bonk's $25,000 bonus a subject of this lawsuit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Einhorn v. Culea
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.