Johnson v. Warnaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2001
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · Coryell v. Phipps · Lowendahl v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The parent corporation owns all or a majority of the capital stock of the subsidiary. (2) The parent and subsidiary corporations have common directors or officers. (3) The parent corporation finances the subsidiary. (4) The parent corporation subscribes to all the capital stock of the subsidiary or otherwise causes its incorporation. (5) The subsidiary has grossly inadequate capital. (6) The parent corporation pays the salaries or expenses or losses of the subsidiary. (7) The subsidiary has substantially no business except with the parent corporation or no assets except those conveyed to it by the parent corporation. (8) In the papers of the parent corporation and in the statements of its officers, “the subsidiary” is referred to as such or as a department or division. (9) The directors or executives of the subsidiary do not act independently in the interest of the subsidiary but take direction from the parent corporation. (10) The formal legal requirements of the subsidiary as a separate and independent corporation are not observed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Restating the instrumentality rule, we may say that in any case, except express agency, estoppel, or direct tort, three elements must be proved: “(1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances, but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; and “(2) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or a dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff’s legal rights; and “(3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.” [ 247 App.Div. 144 , 287 N.Y.S. 76 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order for a cause of action to exist for interference with a contract it must be proved that the contract in question would have been performed `but for' the wrongful interference of the defendant, and that the interference complained of was wrongful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.