Tenney v. Rosenthal’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons (1964), Dotlich v. Dotlich (1985)
18 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 Whitten v. Dabney · Clarke v. Greenberg · MATTER OF COHEN v. Cocoline Prods. · Johnson v. BALDWIN · Denicke v. Anglo California National Bank
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The situation is, obviously, quite different in the case of the director's derivative suit. His right to sue is based on the public policy declared by the Legislature upon enactment of the statute. We may assume that the right to bring suit has been granted in order to facilitate and improve the director's performance of the 'stewardship obligation' which he owes to the corporation and its stockholders to protect him from possible liability for failure to proceed against those responsible for improper management of the corporation affairs."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * the defendants urge the analogy of derivative suits brought by shareholders, wherein it has been held that the plaintiff loses his right to continue to prosecute the action if he ceases to be a shareholder. (See Gleicher v. Times-Columbia Inc., 283 App.Div. 709 [ 128 N.Y.S.2d 55 ]; Smith v. Industrial Acceptance Corp., 265 App.Div. 931 [ 38 N.Y.S.2d 379 ]; Johnson v. Baldwin, 221 S.C. 141 [ 69 S.E.2d 585 ]). While there may be many similarities between the derivative action brought by a shareholder and one brought by a director—in both cases the action is prosecuted in the right and for the benefit of the corporation—there are important reasons why the rule of automatic disqualification upon loss of status should not be extended to the director’s action.” 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hoover v. Allen“Strong reasons of policy dictate that, once he properly initiates an action on behalf of the corporation to vindicate its rights, a director should be privileged to see it through to conclusion. Other directors, themselves charged with fraud, misconduct or neglect, should not have the power to terminate the suit by effecting the ouster of the director-plaintiff. It is no answer to say that, if wrongs were committed, others are available to commence a new and appropriate action.”
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.