Lewis v. Vogelstein’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Brehm v. Eisner (2000), Lindsay v. Stanley (2010)
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 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 Weinberger v. UOP, Inc. · Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. · Grobow v. Perot · 23 Del. Ch. 234 - Keenan v. Eshleman · Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC Network 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The judicial standard for determination of corporate waste is well developed. Roughly, a waste entails an exchange of corporate assets for consideration so disproportionately small as to lie beyond the range at which any reasonable person might be willing to trade.... If, however, there is any substantial consideration received by the corporation, and if there is a good faith judgment that in the circumstances the transaction is worthwhile, there should be no finding of waste, even if the fact finder would conclude ex post that the transaction was unreasonably risky.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[t]here are salient differences . . . between financial statement disclosure of an estimated value of stock options under a plan and disclosure for the purpose of shareholder ratification of adoption of the plan.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“One way of conceptualizing that effect is that it provides, after the fact, the grant of authority that may have been wanting at the time of the agent’s act. Another might be to view the ratification as consent or as an estoppel by the principal to deny a lack of authority. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 103 (1958). In either event the effect of informed ratification is to validate or affirm the act of the agent as the act of the principal. Id. § 82.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Klig v. DELOITTE LLP
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.