Port Chester Electrical Construction Corp. v. Atlas’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Owens v. Haas (1979), Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc. (1991)
73 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 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.
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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhere a shareholder uses a corporation for the transaction of the shareholder’s personal business, as distinct from the corporate business, the courts have held the shareholder liable for the acts of the corporation in accordance with the general principles of agency. The determinative factor is whether ‘the corporation is a “dummy” for its individual stockholders who are in reality carrying on the business in their personal capacities for purely personal rather than corporate ends.’”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that Sol Atlas was the controlling principal of these corporations is, by itself, insufficient to justify disregarding the corporate form. Since Atlas himself carefully respected the separate identities of the corporations, and each corporation was pursuing its separate corporate business, rather than the purely personal business of Atlas, we conclude that the corporate veils of the defendant corporations should not be 'pierced.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally it has been held that the ordinary construction contract — i.e., one which does not expressly state that the intention of the contracting parties is to benefit a third party — does not give third parties who contract with the promisee the right to enforce the latter’s contract with another. Such third parties are generally considered mere incidental beneficiaries.”
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.