Erlich v. Glasner’s Empirical Analysis

418 F.2d 226 · 1969

Citation profile

cited by 82 later decisions

states following

September 2010

most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan (1989), Gregory v. Mitchell (1981)

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp. · Erlich v. Glasner · Toboni v. Pennington Millinery Co. · Erlich v. Glasner

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.

“[E]ven though a stockholder owns all, or practically all, of the stock in a corporation, such a fact of itself does not authorize him to sue as an individual. . . . We find nothing in the Civil Rights Act which would permit [the plaintiff-stockholder] to circumvent the rule of law just stated, completely avoid the corporate entity and thus maintain an action in his own name.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Roger Potthoff, an Individual v. William Morin, in His Individual Capacity Port Authority of the City of St. Paul, a Public Corporation · Diva's Inc. v. City of Bangor
“Generally, a (shareholder) may not maintain an action in his own behalf for a wrong done by a third person to the corporation on the theory that such wrong devalued his stock and the stock of other shareholders, for such an action would authorize multitudinous litigation and ignore the corporate entity. Under proper circumstances a shareholder may bring a representative action or derivative action on behalf of the corporation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Michael J. Von Brimer, Co-Executors of the Estate of Joseph W. Von Brimer, Deceased v. Whirlpool Corporation
“Such an action ... would authorize multitudinous litigation and ignore the corporate entity.... Simply stated, the claimed damages are those of the corporation, not those of the appellant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Smith Setzer & Sons, Inc. v. South Carolina Procurement Review Panel

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.