Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 F.3d 348 - Thrift v. Hubbard

Thrift v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

44 F.3d 348 · 1995

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 194 W. Va. 52 - Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. (1995), Olmsted v. Taco Bell Corp. (1998)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

390199520002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Bibby v. United States · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Kachina Plywood, Inc. v. Hurt

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

  1. “(1) the existence of a contract that was subject to interference, (2) a willful and intentional act of interference, (3) such act was a. proximate cause of plaintiffs damages, and (4) actual damage or loss occurred.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A holder of shares ... shall be under no obligation to the corporation or to its obligees with respect to ... (2) any contractual obligation of the corporation on the basis that the holder, owner, or subscriber is or was the alter ego of the corporation, ... unless the obligee demonstrates that the holder, owner or subscriber caused the corporation to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate an actual fraud on the obligee primarily for the direct personal benefit of the holder, owner, or subscriber____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the total dealings of the corporation and the individual, including the degree to which corporate formalities have been followed and corporate and individual property have been kept separately, the amount of financial interest, ownership and control the individual maintains over the corporation, and whether the corporation has been used for personal purposes.”
    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.