Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,143’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “The District Court also held that corporate control is recognized to be of universal interest to corporate officers and directors and that the failure of proxy materials to disclose this subjective interest is not a violation of the securities laws .... Here the proposed actions of the company and their effect on stockholdings were fully disclosed ... In the absence of some ulterior wrongful design hinging upon so-called “entrenchment”, the directors were not required to put forth in the proxy materials and analysis of their otherwise obvious interest in company control. Id. at 71 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 504 F. Supp. 1044 - Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Kennecott Corp.

2. “[T]he directors were not required to put forth in the proxy materials an analysis of their otherwise obvious interest in company control.”); Lewis v. Oppenheimer & Co., 481 F.Supp. 1199, 1204 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (Pollack, J.) (stating that it is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Merrill Lynch & Co., Research Reports Securities Litigation

3. “reasonably available to the shareholders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,418 Jay H. Koppel and Arnold E. Greenberg v. 4987 Corporation 498 Seventh Avenue Associates Peter L. Malkin Stanley Katzman John L. Loehr Martin D. Newman Wien, Malkin & Bettex and Donald A. Bettex, Garment Capitol Associates, Nominal-Defendant-Appellee