Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 A2D 244 - Brehm v. Eisner

Brehm v. Eisner’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

444
cited by 444 later decisions
28
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 51 district · 180 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 444 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc. (2004), Malpiede v. Townson (2001)

52 federal appellate · 51 district · 180 state decisions — followed in 28 states

2160200020102020decided

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 TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Aronson v. Lewis · Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc. · Smith v. Van Gorkom · Grobow v. Perot

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

  1. “[p]laintiffs are entitled to all reasonable factual inferences that logically flow from the particularized facts alleged, but conclusory allegations are not considered as expressly pleaded facts or factual inferences.”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In this regard, the Delaware Supreme Court has explained that the entire question of demand futility is inextricably bound to issues of business judgment and the standard of that doctrine’s applicability.... It is a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “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,”
    13 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.