Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 680 F.2d 1286 - Polinsky v. MCA Inc.

Polinsky v. MCA Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

680 F.2d 1286 · 1982

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
April 2005
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2005

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

170198219902000decided

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 Warth v. Seldin · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Linda R. S. v. Richard D. · Chiarella v. United States · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n

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

  1. “[A] purchaser of stock who has no fiduciary relationship to the prospective seller of the stock and who owns less than five percent of the target companies' stock has no duty to disclose circumstances that will insure the purchaser pays the highest possible price for the stock.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. Whether there is an active and widespread solicitation of public shareholders for shares of an issuer; 2. Whether the solicitation is made for a substantial percentage of the issuer’s stock; 3. Whether the offer to purchase is made at a premium over the prevailing market price; 4. Whether the terms of the offer are firm rather than negotiated; 5. Whether the offer is contingent on the tender of a fixed minimum number of shares, and perhaps, subject.to the ceiling of a fixed maximum number to be purchased; 6. Whether the offer is open for only a limited period of time; 7. Whether the offerees are subject to pressure to sell their stock; 8. - Whether the public announcements of a purchasing program concerning the target company precede or accompany a rapid accumulation of large amounts of target company securities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “tender offer had been successful... then Appellees' position would not have changed and they would not have made the additional profits they seek”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.