Starr v. Fordham’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 48 district · 147 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 243 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. (1997), Farmers Insurance Exchange v. RNK, Inc. (2011)
22 federal appellate · 48 district · 147 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 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · United States v. Seckinger · Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. · McEvoy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Norton Co. · Barrett Associates, Inc. v. Aronson
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 243 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“isolating words and interpreting them as though they stood alone.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“a contract should be construed to give it effect as a rational business instrument and in a manner which will carry out the intent of the parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The founding partners argue next that the judge erred in concluding that the business judgment rule does not preclude judicial review of their determination of the plaintiffs share of the 1986 profits. There was no error. The test to be applied when one partner alleges that another partner has violated his duty of strict faith is whether the allegedly violating partner can demonstrate a legitimate business purpose for his action. Neverthe less, the business judgment rule does not apply if the plaintiff can demonstrate self-dealing on the part of the allegedly wrongdoing partner. Having properly concluded that the founding partners had engaged in self-dealing when they assigned to the plaintiff his share of the profit, the judge made no error in concluding that the business judgment rule did not apply to the founding partners’ actions.”
2 later decisions 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.