38 Cal. 2d 802 - Hogan v. Ingold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 75 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “have recourse to such security in such amount as the court shall determine upon the termination of such action,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beyerbach v. Juno Oil Co. · 249 Cal. App. 2d 644 - Woodman v. Ackerman

2. “*‘ ‘ (1) The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he was a registered shareholder or the holder of voting trust certificates at the time of the transaction or any part thereof of which he complains or that his shares or voting trust certificates thereafter devolved upon him by operation of law from a holder who was a holder at the time of the transaction or any part thereof complained of. “(2) The plaintiff alleges in the complaint with particularity his efforts to secure from the board of directors such action as he desires and alleges further that he has either informed the corporation or such board of directors in writing of the ultimate facts of each cause of action against each defendant director or delivered to the corporation or such board of directors a true copy of the complaint which he proposes to file, and the reasons for his failure to obtain such action or the reasons for not making such effort. ‘1 (b) In any such action, at any time within thirty days after service of summons upon the corporation or any defendant, the corporation or such defendant may move the court for an order, upon notice and hearing, requiring the plaintiff to furnish security as hereinafter provided. Such motion may be based upon one or more of the following grounds: “(1) That there is no reasonable probability that the prosecution of the cause of action alleged in the complaint against the moving party will benefit the corporation or its security holders; “ (2) That the moving party, i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Cal. 2d 338 - Reed v. Norman

3. “If the power of the state over this type of fiduciary litigation is plenary, as the Cohen case states [Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (1949), supra, 337 U.S. 541, 551 ], then surely such litigation is subject to regulation of the type provided by section 834. ... The stockholder will not incur any liability for costs if he does not essay to bring in equity a suit in the corporation's right. If he does bring such a suit he knows that he [like all others in his class] will be subject to the regulating provisions of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beyerbach v. Juno Oil Co.