Liboff v. Wolfson’s Empirical Analysis
437 F.2d 121 · 1971
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Lewis v. Curtis (1982), In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions (1973)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Demand by plaintiff that the Board of Directors of the Corporation bring this action would have been futile. The majority of said directors, participated, approved of and acquiesced in said transaction and are liable therefor. The directors of the Corporation would not and could not diligently prosecute this action because they would have to bring it against themselves which would prevent its effective prosecution.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“defendants-appellees conceded on oral argument that . . . a majority of the board . . . [met the description of 'ownership and control'] as to them.”
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.