Price v. Gurney’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 100 · 1945
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 310 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Burks v. Lasker (1979), Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox (1984)
62 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGurney v. Massena (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Hawes v. Oakland · Dodge v. Woolsey · Continental Securities Co. v. . Belmont · Davenport v. Dows
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 310 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a misconception running through the presentation of this case which should be noted at the outset. It "is a misnomer to speak of the filing of the petition on behalf of the corporation as a derivative action. A derivative action is a suit by a shareholder to enforce a corporate cause of action. The corporation is a necessary party to the suit. And the relief which is granted is a judgment against a third person in favor of the corporation. That is the rule in Ohio as well as elsewhere. 10 Ohio Juris. § 244 et seq.; Dodge v. Woolsey, supra, ( 18 How. 331 , 15 L.Ed. 401 ); City of Davenport v. Dows, supra, ( 18 Wall. 626 , 21 L.Ed. 938 ); Hill v. Murphy, 212 Mass. 1 , 98 N.E. 781 , 40 L.R.A., N.S., 1102, Ann.Cas.1913C, 374; Groel v. United Electric Co., 70 N.J.Eq. 616, 61 A. 1061 ; Continental Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206 N.Y. 7 , 99 N.E. 138 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 112, Ann.Cas.1914A, 777. Similarly, if $. corporation has a defense to an action against it and is not asserting it, a stockholder may intervene and defend on behalf of the corporation. 10 Ohio Juris. § 257; Eggers v. National Radio Co., 208 Cal. 308 , 281 P. 58 ; Fitzwater v. National Bank of Seneca, 62 Kan. 163 , 61 P. 684 , 84 Am.St.Rep. 377 . Moreover, equity has evolved numerous remedies to protect not only the rights of the corporation but the interests of the stockholders as such against various acts of mismanagement. See 10 Ohio Juris. § 260 et seq.; Berle, Studies in the Law of Corporation Finance (19”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has no alternative but to dismiss the petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Njowhere is there any indication that Congress bestowed on the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to determine that those who in fact do not have the authority to speak for the corporation as a matter of local law are entitled to be given such authority and therefore should be empowered to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. Respondents may have a meritorious case for relief. On that we intimate no opinion. But if they are to be allowed to put their corporation into bankruptcy, they must present credentials to the bankruptcy court showing their authority.”
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.