Epstein v. MCA, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
50 F.3d 644 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Epstein (1996), SEC v. Phan (2007)
19 federal appellate · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 26 U.S.C. § 1014 · 26 U.S.C. § 351 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Stinson v. United States · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where any person varies the terms of a tender offer or request or invitation for tenders before the expiration thereof by increasing the consideration offered to holders of such securities, such person shall pay the increased consideration to each security holder whose securities are taken up and paid for pursuant to the tender offer or request or invitation for tenders whether or not such securities have been taken up by such person before the variation of the tender offer or request or invitation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“because the Delaware judgment released exclusively federal claims. Rather, we withheld full faith and credit because the great disparity between the state and federal claims--there were no overlapping issues of fact whatsoever (see Epstein I at 665-66)--meant that a judgment based upon an adjudication of the state claims could have no issue preclusive effect on the federal claims 5 Since the Chancery Court could have found that representation was inadequate without also finding that it was collusive, litigation of the collusion issue would not constitute”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[u]nder [the tender offeror’s argument], even the most blatantly discriminatory tender offer — in which large shareholders were paid twice as much as small shareholders — would fall outside RUle 14d-10’s prohibition, so long as the bidder waited a few seconds after it accepted all of the tendered shares before paying the favored shareholders. Rule 14d-10’s equality requirements ... cannot be so easily circumvented.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.