Miller v. Steinbach’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc. (1991), Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co. (1974)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Bell v. Hood · Van Dusen v. Barrack · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o hold that the surviving corporation inherits a derivative right of action where said corporation has wrongfully taken part in the very acts complained of would be to reach an incongruous and highly inequitable result”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to conclusively bind a corporate shareholder to a plan of merger where that shareholder has been lulled into a false sense of security because of the issuance of a glowing and misleading proxy statement, would be to reach a highly inequitable result, a result not required by the Pennsylvania statute, and as will be demonstrated shortly, a result not warranted by the Pennsylvania decisions relied on by defendants. Even where a statute by its terms stated that the remedy of appraisal was exclusive, it has been held to relate only to a good-faith sale and will not include a sham sale or legal subterfuge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or to engage in any fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts or practices, in connection with any tender offer or request or invitation for tenders, or any solicitation of security holders in opposition to or in favor of any such offer, request, or invitation.”
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.