Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 526 A2D 914 - Grobow v. Perot

Grobow v. Perot’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Grobow v. Perot (1988), Levine v. Smith (1991)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

701987199020002010decided

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 Aronson v. Lewis · Smith v. Van Gorkom · Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado · Associates in Anesthesia, Inc. v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance · Moran v. Household International, 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “by a corporation, at a premium over market, of its own stock held by a single dissident shareholder or shareholder group at odds with management, [which] have repeatedly been upheld as valid exercises of business judgment. See Polk v. Good, Del.Supr., 507 A.2d 531 (1986); Cheff v. Mathes, Del.Supr., 199 A.2d 548 (1964); Edelman v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Del.Ch., Civil Action No. 7899, Walsh, V.C. (February 12, 1985) [Available on WESTLAW, 1985 WL 11534 ]; Lewis v. Daum, Del.Ch., Civil Action No. 6733, Brown, C. (May 24, 1984) [Available on WESTLAW, 1984 WL 8223 ]; Kaplan v. Goldsamt, Del.Ch., 380 A.2d 556 (1977); Kors v. Carey, Del.Ch., 158 A.2d 136 (1960).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “While these numbers [$ 358,966 to $ 538,824] may be substantial, the Court cannot conclude, without more, that they are "so lavish that a mechanical application of the [presumption of director independence] would be totally at variance with reality”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is now well-settled that an allegation that a majority of directors approved, participated, or acquiesced in the challenged transaction will not, in and of itself, establish demand futility.”
    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.