30 Mass. App. Ct. 697 - Johnson v. Witkowski’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 11 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto (1994), Starr v. Fordham (1995)
10 federal appellate · 11 district · 41 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Shaffer v. Heitner · Meinhard v. Salmon
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We note initially that the difficulty arises here because of the defendants’ multiple roles. They were the trustees of the trust and were also stockholders, directors, and officers of a close corporation involved in transactions in which they stood on both sides and in which they had a self-interest. In each capacity, the defendants had fiduciary duties. Wearing more than one hat — here, at least three— requires a fiduciary to be very nimble as well as most prudent. While the fiduciary may purport to wear one hat at a particular moment, in truth, all hats are worn together at all times.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“embrace [s] any purposeful acts performed in Massachusetts, whether personal, private, or commercial”). 3 . Specifically, LTX alleges that it suffered losses because it had to pay for the salaries and expenses of its Massachusetts employees who worked on the deal. LTX also claims injuries from its need to increase its production and hire more Massachusetts employees, only to have to lay them off as a result of the disavowed order. It also lost other business opportunities because it devoted its time and resources to the.deal. Finally, LTX claims that its good will was harmed and its stock price dropped as a result of negative newspaper and industry reports about the cancellation. Because the issue is resolved on other grounds, it need not be decided whether these issues can properly be located "in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is only prima facie evidence that the defendant was served, and does not warrant the denial of [a properly supported] motion to vacate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.