Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 A.2d 180 - Grobow v. Perot

Grobow v. Perot’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

211
cited by 211 later decisions
13
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 19 district · 116 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Janas v. McCracken (1999), Brehm v. Eisner (2000)

19 federal appellate · 19 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 13 states

9701988199020002010decided

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 · Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. · Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Levien · 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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he complaint shall ... allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority ... and the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that their actions are in the corporation's best interest.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the directors are disinterested and independent and (2) the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.”
    3 later decisions 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.