Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 475 N.E.2d 331 - Dotlich v. Dotlich

Dotlich v. Dotlich’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
5
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink (1991), Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc. (1987)

3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

2301985199020002010decided

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 Briggs v. Spaulding · Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong · Guy v. SCHULDT · 99 F. Supp. 808 - Speed v. Transamerica Corp. · Speed v. Transamerica Corp.

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

  1. “[oJlnee it is established that one with a fiduciary duty has attempted to benefit from a questioned transaction, the law presumes fraud [andl[tlhe burden of proof shifts to the fiduciary to overcome the presumption by showing his actions were honest and in good faith.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““If any person liable to an action shall conceal the fact from the knowledge of the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within the period of limitation after the discovery of the cause of action.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The situation is, obviously, quite different in the case of the director's derivative suit. His right to sue is based on the public policy declared by the Legislature upon enactment of the statute. We may assume that the right to bring suit has been granted in order to facilitate and improve the director’s performance of the "stewardship obligation” which he owes to the corporation and its stockholders and to protect him from possible liability for failure to proceed against those responsible for improper management of the corporate affairs.”
    1 later decision 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.