Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 MINN 519 - Dent v. Matteson

Dent v. Matteson’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
October 1935
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1935

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

4018971900191019201930decided

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 Hantzch v. Massolt · Lake Phalen Land & Improvement Co. v. Lindeke

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

  1. ““We are clearly of the opinion that, as a general rule, the statutory or constitutional double liability of a stockholder survives his death, whether the corporate indebtedness was incurred before or after his death, and whether the corporation becomes insolvent before or after his death. One of the very objects of organizing corporations is to prevent the death of any of its members from interfering with the business or affairs of the concern. The stockholder’s contract does not contemplate a hiatus in liability resulting from his death. Whether he is living or dead, there may be no assets out of which the liability can be satisfied. But the liability contracted by the stockholder does not terminate with his death. His is a continuing contract. He contracts for a liability which is to continue, at least, until his stock is transferred to another on the books of the company, or until such a transfer is rightfully demanded.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The claim here in question was a contingent claim, which did not become absolute until after the time to file claims had expired, and the estate was distributed to the widow, heirs and next of kin. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff may maintain an action under G. S., 1894, c. 77, [which includes § 5918] against the distributees to recover of them the amount of the liability, not exceeding the amount of the distributive share received by each.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.