Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders in Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “The language of the Local 375 Constitution is clear and unmistakable, and the interpretation of that provision by both the Trial Officer and the full Judicial Panel was both literal and reasonable. Therefore, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [defendants are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Accordingly, summary judgment is entered in favor of the defendants with respect to the claim under LMRA § 301.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 272 F. Supp. 2d 332 - Commer v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees · Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber

2. “). See Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber, 327 F.3d 173 (2d Cir.2003) (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Das v. Rio Tinto PLC · Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber

3. ““As a threshold matter, you must determine- whether privity existed between Hallinan and Benefits at the time of the prior arbitration. Privity exists if Halli-nan was represented during the prior legal proceeding by another ... ‘vested with the authority of representation,’ or if Hallinan exercised ‘some degree of actual control’ over the presentation of Benefits’ case in the prior proceeding.” 27 In determining whether Hallinan was represented during the prior legal proceeding by another Vested with the authority of representation,’ you should first determine whether ... from a preponderance [of the credible evidence] whether Hallinan was a shareholder of Benefits at the time of the prior arbitration. Privity can exist where the party in the prior proceeding acted in a fiduciary capacity in protecting the non-party’s interest.” 28 “A company has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of its shareholders. Thus, you may consider the fact of whether or not Hallinan was a shareholder of Benefits in determining whether privity existed between Hallinan and Benefits at the time of the prior arbitration. IJowever, if you determine that Hallinan was a shareholder of Benefits, that did not automatically establish privity between Hallinan and Benefits. There is no bright line rule as to whether or not shareholders are in privity with their corporation. 29 You must consider all the facts and determine whether Hallinan was in privity [in] a prior proceeding by another vested with the a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hallinan v. Republic Bank & Trust Co.