Lewis v. Knutson’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.2d 230 · 1983
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Taylor v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1997), Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund (1996)
35 federal appellate · 10 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Warth v. Seldin · Bell v. Hood · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]or plaintiff to satisfy the standing requirements of Rule 23.1, he must demonstrate that he owned stock in the corporation at the time of the transaction of which he complains and throughout the pendency of the suit, which includes the bringing of the suit and its prosecution. Schilling v. Belcher, 582 F.2d 995, 999 (5th Cir. 1978). These ownership requirements are necessary because “[standing [to bring a derivative action in behalf of a corporation] is justified only by the proprietary interest created by the stockholder relationship and the possible indirect benefits the nominal plaintiff may acquire qua stockholder of the corporation which is the real party in interest.” Id. at 1002 (quoting Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727, 735-36 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 974 , 91 S.Ct. 1190 , 28 L.Ed.2d 323 (1971)). See also Portnoy v. Kawecki Berylco Industries, Inc., 607 F.2d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 1979); Papilsky v. Berndt, 466 F.2d 251, 255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 689 , 34 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972). Thus, standing under Rule 23.1 concerns the plaintiff’s relationship with the real party in interest, the corporation, and not the injury of the corporation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to avoid deciding questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated and to limit access to the federal courts to those litigants best suited to assert a particular claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to step into the corporation's shoes and to seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Chiles
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.