Wright v. Heizer Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.2d 236 · 1977
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand (1981), O'Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. (1979)
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Dandridge v. Williams · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a highly unreasonable omission, involving not merely simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and which presents a danger of misleading buyers or sellers that is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the actor must have been aware of it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the first three transactions Heizer was a lender to, and shareholder of, a corporation it did not control and on whose board it was not represented. We may assume that as. such it was entitled to act solely in its own interest in dealing with IDC’s management, whose responsibility it was to advise the shareholders. By the time of the fourth transaction, however, Heizer had gained voting control of IDC and had placed two of its officers on IDC’s board of directors. Thus it stood in a fiduciary position and could no longer act for itself alone. When Heizer chose to continue its participation in communications to the IDC shareholders, it owed them the duty of full disclosure. As we have already noted, Heizer breached that duty by failing to disclose any of the material facts concerning the transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to unravel in an equitable manner the transactions resulting from Heizer’s wrongful conduct, the maturities of the loans should be adjusted to make them commensurate with IDC’s ability to pay. On remand the District Court should make the necessary determinations and modify the terms of the loans accordingly.”
1 later decision 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.