Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 453 MASS 569 - Johnston v. Box

Johnston v. Box’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc. · Aronson v. Lewis · Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. · Brehm v. Eisner · Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.

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

  1. “Courts are not required to grant motions to amend prior complaints where 'the proposed amendment ... is futile'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 - L.B. v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Developmental Servs.
  2. “as presently constituted is now independent and disinterested”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.
  3. “Massachusetts employs liberal amendment rules,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 - Ruiz v. Univ. of Mass. Corr. Health

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.