Stull v. Pool’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 71 Ill. 2d 583 - Frank v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n of America (1978), Susman v. Lincoln American Corp. (1977)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp. · Alpine Pharmacy, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., and Cotler Drugs, Inc. · Graybeal v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n · Cotchett v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. · Shields v. First 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any class action there is always the temptation for the attorney for the class to recommend settlement on terms less favorable to his clients because a large fee is part of the bargain. The impropriety of such a position is increased where, as here, the attorney is also the , representative who brought the action on behalf of the class, and where, as here, the potential recoveries by individual members, including representatives, of the class are likely to be very small in proportion to the total amount of recovery by the class as a whole. Thus Plaintiffs may stand to gain little as class representatives, but may gain very much as attorneys for the class.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sweet v. Bermingham“Further, the plaintiff has rendered herself vulnerable to embarrassing cross-examination in this action by reason of contradictory statements made under oath in pleadings in Stull v. Green, 69 Civ. 440, instituted by her in this Court asserting derivative claims on behalf of Piper arising from the same Chris-Craft contest for control. . . . These scathing assertions tarnish plaintiff’s present ability to be the representative of all stockholders. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sweet v. Bermingham“Defendants assert that the conflict in this situation further mandates disqualification of Mrs. Stull as a class representative. (citations omitted). This would seem to be a valid position, but I do not reach this question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sweet v. Bermingham
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.