310 So. 2d 806 - Noe v. Roussel’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Junker v. Crory (1981), Ward v. Succession of Freeman (1988)
4 federal appellate · 59 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 337
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · McDuffie v. Walker · Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Jackson v. Ludeling · Kittredge v. Grau
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In addition, the `fiduciary may not take even the slightest advantage, but must zealously, diligently and honestly guard and champion the rights of his principal against all other persons whomsoever, and is bound not to act in antagonism, opposition or conflict with the interest of the principal to even the slightest extent.'”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“officers and directors.... shall discharge the duties of their respective positions in good faith, and with that diligence, care, judgment and skill which ordinarily prudent men would exercise under similar circumstances in like positions.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The material facts as to his (the director’s) interest as to the contract or transaction were disclosed or known to the Board of Directors or the committee, and the board or committee in good faith authorized the contract or transaction by a vote sufficient for each purpose without counting the vote of the interested director or directors; or 2. The material facts as to his interest and as to the contract or transaction were disclosed or known to the shareholders entitled to vote thereon and the contract or transaction was approved in good faith by vote of the shareholders, or; 3. The contract or transaction was fair as to the corporation as of the time it was authorized, approved or ratified by the board of directors, committee, or shareholders. (Emphasis added)”
4 later decisions 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.