Stroud v. Grace’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. (1994)
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 107 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Aronson v. Lewis · Guth v. Loft, Inc. · Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board's control when it seeks shareholder action'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.... It does not require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused a reasonable investor to change his vote. What the standard does contemplate is a showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. Put another way, there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the "total mix” of information made available.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““necessarily invoke[s] both Unocal and Blasius ” because “both [tests] recognize the inherent conflicts of interest that arise when shareholders are not permitted free exercise of their franchise---- [I]n certain circumstances, [the judiciary] must recognize the special import of protecting the shareholders’ franchise within Unocal ’s requirement that any defensive measure be proportionate and ‘reasonable in relation to the threat posed.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.