374 F. Supp. 1324 - Goodall v. Columbia Ventures, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 247 Ill. App. 3d 966 - Mann v. Kemper Financial Companies, Inc. (1992), 619 F. Supp. 542 - Nordic Bank PLC v. Trend Group, Ltd. (1985)
8 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 687 · 15 U.S.C. § 687F · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers · Marietta Norton v. The Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University · In re Disbarment of Allison
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[fit is not necessary ... to allege a breach of contract in order to state a valid claim for interference with contractual relations. The tort extends to cases in which performance of the contract is rendered more difficult or a party’s enjoyment of the contract's benefits is lessened by the wrongdoer’s actions. In New York, “an unlawful interference with a person in the performance of his contract with a third person is just as much a legal wrong as is an unlawful inducement of a breach of that contract by the third party.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress did not intend, and the Birnbaum rule has consistently been interpreted, to prevent the use of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 as vehicles for suits based on mere corporate mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty. Such claims are commonly cognizable under state law . . . .” (Id. at 1130.)”
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.