Dolcin Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. ““ * * * [T]his court did not impose an obligation on Shimmerlik and Wantz that they could discharge by remaining inert. We imposed an affirmative obligation upon them, individually and as officers of Dolcin, to take all reasonable steps to effect compliance with this court’s order. Those steps included, at least, that they become currently informed of the advertising conduct of Dolcin. That their ‘articulations’ to van der Linde might have been unavailing does not relieve them of the responsibility to make those articulations. And we are not prepared to predict that such efforts, had they been made, would have been ‘meaningless.’ Whatever the order of this court directed Shimmerlik and Wantz to do, it did not permit them to stand idly by while the Dolcin Corporation — their corporation — continued to flout our order. . “Were we to take the opposite view, we would be putting a premium on ignorance and offering a sanctuary for those remiss in performing their duties as corporate officers. See Fleischman, supra, 339 U.S. at page 364 , 70 S.Ct. at page 746 [ 94 L.Ed. 906 ]. Shimmerlik and Wantz should not be permitted to use their own inertia as a shield against the force of this court’s decree.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 412 F. Supp. 754 - United States v. Bestline Products Corp. · 363 F. Supp. 525 - United States v. Greyhound Corporation