Minton v. Cavaney’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Walkovszky v. Carlton (1966), Donsco, Inc. v. Casper Corp. (1978)
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 179 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 34 Cal. 2d 209 - Dillard v. McKnight · 47 Cal. 2d 792 - Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. Resnick · 20 Cal. 2d 839 - Stark v. Coker · 3 Cal. 2d 740 - Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co. · Minifie v. Rowley
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this action to hold defendant personally liable upon the judgment against Seminole plaintiffs did not allege or present any evidence on the issue of Seminole's negligence or on the amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs. They relied solely on the judgment against Seminole. Defendant correctly contends that Cavaney or his estate cannot be held liable for the debts of Seminole without an opportunity to relitigate these issues.... Caveney was not a party to the action against the corporation, and the judgment in that action is therefore not binding upon him unless he controlled the litigation leading to the judgment.... Although Cavaney filed an answer to the complaint against Seminole as its attorney, he withdrew before the trial and did not thereafter participate therein. The filing of an answer without any other participation is not sufficient to bind Cavaney. "In order that the rule stated in this action [that a person in control of the litigation is bound by the judgment] should apply it is necessary that the one in whose favor or against whom the rules of res judicata operate participate in the control of the action and if judgment is adverse, be able to determine whether or not an appeal should be taken. It is not sufficient that he supplies the funds for the prosecution or defense, that he appears as a witness or cooperates without having control." Restatement of Judgments § 84 comment e; .... [ 364 P. 2d at 476 , 15 Cal. Rptr. at 644 ; citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If a corporation is organized and carries on business without substantial capital in such a way that the corporation is likely to have no sufficient assets available to meet its debts, it is inequitable that shareholders should set up such a flimsy organization to escape personal liability. The attempt to do corporate business without providing any sufficient basis of financial responsibility to creditors is an abuse of the separate entity and will be ineffectual to exempt the shareholders from corporate debts. It is coming to be recognized as the policy of the law that shareholders should in good faith put at the risk of the business unencumbered capital reasonably adequate for its prospective liabilities. If capital is illusory or trifling compared with the business to be done and the risks of loss, this is a ground for denying the separate entity privilege.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist.”
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.