Towne v. Eisner’s Empirical Analysis
245 U.S. 418 · 1918
Citation profile
267 federal appellate · 50 district · 394 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,065 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Monroe v. Pape (1961), Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1950)
267 federal appellate · 50 district · 394 state decisions — followed in 40 states
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 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Billings v. United States · Lamar v. United States
Cited together with Eisner v. Macomber · Markham v. Cabell · Gibbons v. Mahon · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
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 1,065 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”
98 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer than they were before”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A stock dividend converts surplus assets into capital. Such a dividend takes nothing from the property of the corporation, and in no way depletes its assets. The corporation still has just as much property as it had before and is just as solvent and just as capable of meeting all demands upon it.'. Nor does such a dividend-add anything to the capital of the shareholder. ‘It changes the form of his investment by increasing his number of shares, thereby diminishing the value of each share, leaving the aggregate value of all his stock substantially the same.’ While he acquires the ownership of more shares, each represents a smaller fractional interest than before in the total amount of-the corporate property, and his proportionate interest and ownership in the assets of the corporation remain precisely the same. * * . * ” . ... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daigre v. Daigre
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.