Malone v. Brincat’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Brehm v. Eisner (2000), Malpiede v. Townson (2001)
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 87 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Guth v. Loft, 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]irectors of Delaware corporations are under a fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all material information within the board’s control when it seeks shareholder action.... In addition ... directors are under a fiduciary obligation to avoid misleading partial disclosures.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The historic roles played by state and federal law in regulating corporate disclosures have been not only compatible but complementary. That symbiotic relationship has been perpetuated by the recently enacted federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. Although that statute by its terms does not apply to this case, the new statute will require securities class actions involving the purchase or. sale of nationally traded securities, based upon false or misleading statements,- to be brought exclusively in federal court under federal law. The 1998 Act, however, contains two important exceptions: ... the second preserves the availability of state court class actions, where state law already provides that corporate directors have fiduciary disclosure obligations to shareholders. These exceptions have become known as the “Delaware carve-outs.” (Footnotes omitted.) (Italics supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“when directors communicate publicly or directly with shareholders about corporate matters the sine qua non of directors’ fiduciary duty to shareholders is honesty.”); Stroud v. Grace, Del.Supr., 606 A.2d 75 (1992); Weinberger v. U.O.P., Inc., Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 701 (1983). 19 . Arnold v. Society For Savings Bancorp, Del.Supr., 650 A.2d 1270, 1276 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Loudon v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Del.Supr., 700 A.2d 135, 143 (1997) (for plaintiffs to succeed, they must show a substantial likelihood that”
2 later decisions 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.