Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 588 F.2d 400 - Biesenbach v. Guenther

Biesenbach v. Guenther’s Empirical Analysis

588 F.2d 400 · 1978

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Craftmatic Securities Litigation v. Kraftsow (1989), Field v. Trump (1988)

17 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

48019781980199020002010decided

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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · United States v. Scott

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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The securities laws, while their central insistence is upon disclosure, were never intended to attempt any such measures of psychoanalysis or reported self-analysis. The unclean heart of a director is not actionable, whether or not it is “disclosed,” unless the impurities are translated into actionable deeds or omissions both objective and external.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Appellants believe that the misrepresentations and omissions that occurred in this case were: 1) the misleading statements by defendants that the transactions were in the best interests of the shareholders and 2) the defendants’ failure to disclose the true purpose behind the activities. In effect, appellants are stating that the failure to disclose the breach of fiduciary duty is a misrepresentation sufficient to constitute a violation of the [Securities Exchange] Act. We refuse to adopt this approach which would clearly circumvent the Supreme Court’s holding in Santa Fe.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.