Schwabacher v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 182 · 1948
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 27 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 306 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1998 · most notably Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1987), Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. American Train Dispatchers Association Csx Transportation Inc (1991)
131 federal appellate · 27 district · 19 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 28 U.S.C. § 47
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Northern Securities Company v. United States · Akron Ry Co v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States
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 306 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether each class of stockholders received an equivalent of what it turns in, the Commission, of course, is under a duty to see that minority interests are protected, especially where there is an absence of arm’s length bargaining or the terms of the merger have been imposed by management interests adverse to any class of stockholders.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he merger terms, as to stockholders, must be found to be just and reasonable. These terms would be largely meaningless to the stockholders if their interests were ultimately to be settled by reference to provisions of corporate charters and of state laws. * * * Public regulation is not obliged and we cannot lightly assume it is intended to restore values, even if promised by charter terms, if they have already been lost through the operation of economic forces. * * * In appraising a stockholder’s position in a merger as to justice and reasonableness, it is not the promise that a charter made to him but the current worth of that promise that governs, it is not what he once put into a constituent company but what value he is contributing to the merger that is to be made good. 19”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“; that the 1940 Act authorized approval by the Commission of voluntary consolidation of the kind contemplated by § 5(2) (a) if it will be consistent with the public interest, if, subject to any modification made by the Commission, it is just and reasonable, and if there be assent of a”
5 later decisions 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.