Gall v. Exxon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Joy v. North (1982), Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado (1981)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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 18 U.S.C. § 610 · 47 U.S.C. § 202
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(w)hether or not a corporation shall seek to enforce in the courts a cause of action for damages is, like other business questions, ordinarily a matter of internal management ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““. . . The issue before me for decision, however, is not whether the payments made by Esso Italiana to Italian political parties and other unauthorized payments were proper or improper. Were the court to frame the issue in this way, it would necessarily involve itself in the business decisions of every corporation, and be required to mediate between the judgment of the directors and the judgment of the shareholders with regard to particular corporate actions. . Rather, the issue is whether the Special Committee, acting as Exxon’s Board of Directors and in the sound exercise of their business judgment, may determine that a suit against any present or former director or officer would be contrary to the best interests of the corporation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Mere belief that corporate action, taken or contemplated, is illegal gives the [shareholder] no greater right to interfere than is possessed by any other citizen. Stockholders are not guardians of the public. The function of guarding the public against acts deemed illegal rests with public officials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.