Smith v. Dunlap’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2005
18 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 Rogers v. Hill · Toebelman v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. · Continental Securities Co. v. . Belmont · McQuillen v. National Cash Register Co. · Holcomb v. Forsyth
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`To come within the rule of reason the compensation must be in proportion to the executive's ability, services and time devoted to the company, difficulties involved, responsibilities assumed, success achieved, amounts under jurisdiction, corporate earnings, profits and prosperity, increase in volume or quality of business or both and all other relevant facts and circumstances.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is a universal rule that neither the board of directors nor the majority stockholders can, over the protest of a minority stockholder, give away corporate property. Textile Mills v. Colpack, supra [ 264 Ala. 669 , 89 So.2d 187 ]; Bronaugh v. Evans, supra [ 204 Ala. 153 , 85 So. 556 ]; McQuillen v. National Cash Register Co., supra [D.C., 27 F.Supp. 639 , affirmed 4 Cir., 112 F.2d 877 ]; Heller v. Boylan, supra [Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 653 , affirmed 263 App.Div. 815 , 32 N.Y.S.2d 131 , appeal denied 263 App.Div. 852 , 32 N.Y.S.2d 1011 ], * * *” Smith v. Dunlap, 269 Ala. 97, 102 , 111 So.2d 1 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adams v. Smith“"In the leading case of Rogers v. Hill, 289 U.S. 582 , 53 S.Ct. 731 , 77 L.Ed. 1385 , cited by this Court in Edmonson v. First National Bank of Birmingham, 256 Ala. 449 , 55 So.2d 338 , the rule was enunciated that where the amount of a bonus payment to officers of a corporation has no reasonable relation to the value of service for which it is given, it is in reality a gift and the majority stockholders have no power to give away corporate property against the protest of a minority stockholder.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goldman v. Jameson
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.