Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 U.S. 582 - Rogers v. Hill

Rogers v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

289 U.S. 582 · 1933

Citation profile

340
cited by 340 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 15 district · 162 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 340 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1938), Bogardus v. Commissioner (1937)

81 federal appellate · 15 district · 162 state decisions — followed in 16 states

1020193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRogers v. Hill (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor · Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. · Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker · Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Elize Maud Hill E C

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

  1. “If a bonus payment has no relation to the value of services for which it is given, it is in reality a gift in part, and the majority stockholders have no power to give away corporate property against the protest of the minority.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “file additional pleadings, vary or expand the issues ....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Much weight is to be given to the action of the stockholders, and the by-law is supported by the presumption of regularity and continuity. But the rule prescribed by it cannot, against the protest of a shareholder, be used to justify payments of sums as salaries so large as in substance and effect to amount to spoliation or waste of corporate property." Rogers v. Hill, 1933, 289 U.S. 582, 591 , 53 S.Ct. 731, 735 , 77 L.Ed. 1385 .”
    2 later decisions 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.