McMillan v. Intercargo Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 district · 31 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. · Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. · Grobow v. Perot · Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC Network Inc. · Arnold v. Society for Savings Bancorp, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As this court has previously noted: The fact that a corporate board has decided to engage in a change of control transaction invoking so-called Revlon duties does not change the showing of culpability a plaintiff must make in order to hold the directors liable for monetary damages. For example, if a board unintentionally fails, as a result of gross negligence and not of bad faith or self-interest, to follow up on a materially higher bid and an exculpatory charter provision is in place, then the plaintiff will be barred from recovery, regardless of whether the board was in Revlon-land.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... has an important, but confined, influence on the court’s analysis of this motion. Because the plaintiff! ] may not recover damages for a breach of the duty of care by the defendant directors, the court’s focus is necessarily upon whether the complaint alleges facts that, if true, would buttress a conclusion that the defendant directors breached their duty of loyalty or otherwise engaged in conduct not immunized by the exculpatory charter provision. 22”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he plaintiffs may survive this motion only if the complaint contains well-pleaded allegations that the defendant directors breached their duty of loyalty by engaging in intentional, bad faith, or self-interested conduct that is not immunized by the exculpatory charter provision.”). 48 . Integrated Health Services, Inc. v. Elkins, 2004 WL 1949290 , at (Del.Ch. Aug. 24, 2004) (”
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.