Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 NJEQ 356 - Ackerman v. Halsey

Ackerman v. Halsey’s Empirical Analysis

1883

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 1950
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1950

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

6018831890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Brinckerhoff v. . Bostwick · Alexander Hodges v. New England Screw Companys. · 2 Johns. Ch. 1 - Osgood v. Franklin · Franklin v. Osgood

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

  1. “To instance, in non-attendance;. if some •persons are guilty of gross non-áttendance and leave the management entirely to others, they may be guilty by this means of the breaches of trust that kre committed by others. By accepting of a trust of: this sort, a person is obliged to execute it with fidelity and’ reasonable diligence; and it is no excuse to.say that they had no benefit from it, but that it was merely honorary • and therefore they are within the case of common trustees.. Another objection has been made, that the court can make no decree upon these-persons which will be just, for -it is said every man’s non-attendance or omission of his duty is his own default, and that each" particular person - must bear just such, a proportion as is suitable to the loss arising from his particular neglect, which makes it a case out of the power of the court. Now, if this doctrine should prevail, it is indeed laying the axe to the root of the tree. But if, upon inquiry before the master, there should appear to be a supine negligence -in all of them, by which a gross complicated loss happens, j[ will never determine they are not all guilty. Nor will I ever determine that a court of equity, cannot lay hold of every breach of trust-, let the person be guilty of it either in a private or public capacity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “absolute neglect by the defendant directors of all the essential duties of their office.”
    1 later decision 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.