Glass v. Glass’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Duggin v. Adams (1987), Nedrich v. Jones (1993)
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 68 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 United States v. Testan · Childress v. Abeles · Allen Realty Corp. v. Holbert · Worrie v. Boze · Seymon B. Harrison v. United Transportation Union, Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company, Seymon B. Harrison v. United Transportation Union and Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the existence of a business relationship or expectancy, with a probability of future economic benefit to plaintiff; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the relationship or expectancy; (3) a reasonable certainty that absent defendant’s intentional misconduct, plaintiff would have continued in the relationship or realized the expectancy; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (Citations omitted).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The sale of a majority stock interest by an officer or director may result in a breach of his fiduciary duty, however, if the circumstances indicate that the purchasers will loot or mismanage the corporation, or if the sale involves fraud, misuse of confidential information, wrongful appropriation of corporate assets, or personal use of a business advantage that rightfully belongs to the corporation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendants could lawfully offer to buy plaintiff’s stock, in arms’ length negotiations, at any price, regardless of appraisals of other offers. Nor was such an attempt to purchase improper even if it was motivated by a desire to eliminate dissident stockholders and to establish a low valuation of an estate’s stock in the closely held Corporation.”
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.