Radol v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 244 · 1985
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), Armstrong v. Marathon Oil Co. (1987)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc. · Southern Pac Co v. Bogert
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in [making his decision].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The more extensive legal disclosure requirements which apply to freeze-out merger proxy statements are therefore justified by the fact that the law has given the majority the power to foreclose the ownership rights of the minority and has thereby eliminated the market as a correcting mechanism, leaving minority shareholders with only the option of dissent and appraisal, an option which cannot rationally be exercised unless the majority is compelled to make full disclosure regarding appraisals, earnings projections, and other information that sheds light on the value of the firm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, if there was error below on this issue, it was in allowing it to reach the jury. There is no other reported decision sending the materiality of an asset appraisal to the jury; every such decision involving an asset appraisal has held that there was no duty to disclose the appraisal.... [T]he District Court should have ruled that the reports were not material and removed the issue from the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.