Levine v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 19 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), Brehm v. Eisner (2000)
14 federal appellate · 19 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Aronson v. Lewis · Kelly v. United States · Egger v. Phillips · Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n determining the sufficiency of a complaint to withstand demand futility ... [t]he trial court is confronted with two related but distinct questions: (1) whether threshold presumptions of director disinterest or independence are rebutted by well-pleaded facts; and, if not, (2) whether the complaint pleads particularized facts sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that the challenged transaction was the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen a board refuses a demand, the only issues to be examined are the good faith and reasonableness of its investigation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a derivative action brought by 1 or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation or of an incorporated association, the corporation or association having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it, the complaint shall allege that the plaintiff was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share of membership thereafter devolved on him by operation of law. The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desired from the directors or comparable authority and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Abrams v. Koether · Brehm v. Eisner
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.