Green v. Wolf Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inc. v. Mui-Hin Lau (1987), Hageman v. Signal L. P. Gas, Inc. (1973)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Green v. Wolf Corp. · Vine v. Beneficial Finance Co. · Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. · The Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians, on Its Own Behalf, and on Relation of the Skykomish Tribe of Indians v. The United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. . . ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendants contend that they will be prejudiced if plaintiff’s motion is granted. Substantial prejudice to an opposing party in the event of an amendment is a sufficient basis for a denial of leave to replead. Indeed, this is the usual area upon which courts focus when considering whether to permit an amendment. [Citations omitted]. However, defendant’s claim of prejudice in this case appears insubstantial. Defendants aver that they have conducted this litigation thus far on the basis of the claims asserted in the original complaint. This may be assumed, but defendants do not go beyond this statement to demonstrate what real prejudice arises from this state of facts. For example, no showing is made of what delay aside from the time required to file an answer will ensue if the proposed amendment is allowed. Nor do defendants attempt to demonstrate that evidence relevant to plaintiff’s new claims now is no longer available. In short, de fendants’ mere statement of the obvious advances their claim of prejudice not at all. 50 F.R.D. at 223 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[N]either long delay nor the fact that a proposed amendment is motivated by an afterthought of counsel as to the best theory upon which to proceed, by themselves, suffice as reasons for denying leave to amend.”
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.