Jules E. Angoff v. Bernard Goldfine, Harold Brown v. Bernard Goldfine’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 185 · 1959
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert (1980), Kahan v. Rosenstiel (1970)
51 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Trustees v. Greenough · STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Smolowe v. Delendo Corp.
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the amount recovered for the corporation; the time fairly required to be spent on the case; the skill required and employed on the case with reference to the intricacy, novelty and complexity of issues; the difficulty encountered in unearthing the facts and the skill and resourcefulness of opposing counsel; the prevailing rate of compensation for those with the skill, experience and standing of the attorneys * * *; the contingent nature of the fees, with the accompanying risk of wasting hours of work, overhead and expenses (for it is clearly established that compensation is awarded only in the event of success) ; and the benefits accruing to the public from suits such as this. 270 F.2d 185, at 189 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The distinction is urged, by the defendant, that the complaint here does not allege that an action was commenced. It would appear that the purpose of the statute would be as effectively thwarted if such distinction were to be approved as if reimbursement were to be denied entirely. If the objective is the recovery by the corporation of unlawful profits, would it be reasonable to say that a stockholder shall be entitled to all his expenses if he needs to bring suit, but that he shall be denied reimbursement where the same benefit to the corporation has resulted without the necessity of legal proceedings and at less expense? This would be penalizing efficiency and expediency. A stockholder acting in good faith would be induced to accompany his request to the corporation with only scanty information in the hope that the corporation might thereby neglect to bring suit, so as to enable the stockholder to institute an action and thereby recover the fees paid to his attorney for the investigation required to uncover the illegal dealings of the officer. Such an unreasonable interpretation of legislative intent is not to be countenanced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““jurisdiction over the main cause of action necessarily carries with it jurisdiction, in the exercise of the ‘historic equity jurisdiction of the federal courts,’ Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 1939, 307 U.S. 161, 164 , [ 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 ] to award fees and expenses in appropriate situations to counsel for a successful plaintiff.” Angoff v. Goldfine, 270 F.2d 185, 186 (1st Cir. 1959).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.