Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 421 F.3d 989 - Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP

Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP’s Empirical Analysis

421 F.3d 989 · 2005

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Citx Corporation Inc v. Pc, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Verestar, Inc. v. American Tower Corp. (In Re Verestar, Inc.) (2006)

15 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

310200520102020decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 323 · 15 U.S.C. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Pepper v. Litton · United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Davis v. Passman · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is, of course, true that the dissipation of assets limited the firm’s ability to repay its debts in liquidation. Acknowledgment of this fact is not, however, a concession that only the creditors, and not Boston Chicken itself, have sustained any injury. Instead, it is a recognition of the economic reality that any injury to an insolvent firm is necessarily felt by its creditors.... The existence of such indirect injury to creditors notwithstanding, it is “axiomatic” that a trustee has authority to bring “actions against the debtor’s' officers and directors for breach of duty or misconduct.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “misrepresent[ed] (not necessarily intentionally) the firm's financial condition to its outside directors and investors”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “actions against the debtor's officers and directors for breach of duty or misconduct.”
    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.