Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 F.1d 223 - Stuart v. Larson

Stuart v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis

298 F. 223 · 1924

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
7
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Boston Trading Group, Inc. v. Burnazos (1987), Goldie v. Cox (1942)

15 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

80192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury · Washburn v. Green · Watts v. Territory of Washington · Thomas v. Brownville, Fort Kearney, & Pacific Railroad · Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. Howe Brown & 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The great weight of authority in this country is that the directors of an insolvent corporation, who are also creditors thereof, have no right to grant themselves preferences or advantages in the payment of their claims over other creditors, and such rule is merely applied common honesty. A director occupies a certain fiduciary position toward the stockholders and the creditors. He has better facilities for knowing the condition of the company than have the other creditors, and he ought not to be permitted to use that position to benefit himself at their expense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Contracts and transactions between individuals and corporations of which they are directors or officers, which are fair, which are made in good faith, which do not secure to the individuals any undue or unjust benefit or advantage, and in which the interest of the individuals and the duty of the officials work in unison for the welfare of the corporation, are valid and enforceable both at law and in equity.”
    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.