Jones v. Harris Associates L. P.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedJones v. Harris Associates L.P. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc. · Burks v. Lasker · General Motors Corp. v. Tracy
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress rejected a “reasonableness” requirement that was criticized as charging the courts with rate-setting responsibilities. See Daily Income Fund[ v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523, at 538-540 , 104 S.Ct. 831 , 78 L.Ed.2d 645 (1984) ]. Congress’ approach recognizes that courts are not well suited to make such precise calculations. Cf. General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 308 , 117 S.Ct. 811 , 136 L.Ed.2d 761 (1997) (“[T]he Court is institutionally unsuited to gather the facts upon which economic predictions can be made, and professionally untrained to make them”) [citing cases]. Gartenberg’s “so disproportionately large” standard, 694 F.2d at 928, reflects this congressional choice to “rely largely upon [independent director] ‘watchdogs’ to protect shareholders interests.” Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, at 485 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979)].”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a board's process for negotiating and reviewing investment-adviser compensation is robust , a reviewing court should afford commensurate deference to the outcome of the bargaining process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough virtually all subsequent § 36(b) cases cite Gartenberg , most courts have correctly declined its invitation to stray beyond statutory bounds. Instead, they have followed an approach (principally in deciding which cases may proceed past summary judgment) that defers to the informed conclusions of disinterested boards and holds plaintiffs to their heavy burden of proof in the manner the Act, and now the Court's opinion, requires.”
2 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.