Kaplan v. Centex Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 10 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Aronson v. Lewis (1984), Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc. (1993)
10 federal appellate · 10 district · 29 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 30 Del. Ch. 538 - Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp. · Porges v. Vadsco Sales Corp. · 43 Del. Ch. 148 - Warshaw v. Calhoun · 33 Del. Ch. 38 - Hob Tea Room, Inc. v. Miller · Loft v. Guth
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Control” and “domination” are here used in the ordinary meaning of the words and they may be exercised directly or through nominees. But, at minimum, the words imply (in actual exercise) a direction of corporate conduct in such a way as to comport with the wishes or interest of the corporation (or persons) doing the controlling.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Application of the [business judgment] rule of necessity depends upon a showing that informed directors did in fact make a business judgment authorizing the transaction under review. And, as the plaintiff argues, the difficulty here is that the evidence does not show that this was done. There were director-committee-officer references to the realignment but none of these singly or cumulative showed that the director judgment was brought to bear with specificity on the transactions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Van Gorkom“stock ownership alone, at least when it amounts to less than a majority, is not sufficient proof of domination or control.”
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.