McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. New York State Common Retirement Fund, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
339 F.3d 1087 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Swartz v. KPMG LLP (2007), Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (2008)
10 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 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 Lee v. City of Los Angeles · Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Delaware Corporation v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates Sas · WALLACE EX REL. CENCOM v. Wood · 725 F. Supp. 712 - In Re Gulf Oil/Cities Service Tender Offer Lit. · Japan Petroleum Co.(Nigeria) Ltd. v. Ashland Oil
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“McKesson HBOC [sued] its own shareholders for unjust enrichment arising from a merger between McKesson and HBO & Company (“HBOC”). McKes-son claim[ed] that the former HBOC shareholders [we]re the beneficiaries of a windfall triggered by alleged accounting improprieties by HBOC. The shareholders, according to McKesson, exchanged artificially inflated shares of HBOC for fully-valued McKesson shares in the merger transaction. McKesson [wanted] to recover the excess value from the shareholders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts are reluctant to disregard the separate existence of related corporations by piercing the corporate veil, and have consistently given substantial weight to the presumption of separateness. The corporate entity may be disregarded only in exceptional circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Explicit language in the Merger Agreement demonstrate[d] that the parties specifically intended not to confer third-party beneficiary status on anyone.”
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.