Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 NJEQ 146 - Arnold v. Searing

Arnold v. Searing’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 1966
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1966

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

100191019201930194019501960decided

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 Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co. · Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow · Old Dominion Copper Mining Smelting Company v. Frederick Lewisohn · Hayward v. Lesson · Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow

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

  1. ““In the second place, the real parties in interest, as opposed to the interests of the promoters, were the syndicate shareholders who had furnished or had agreed to furnish the actual cash with which the promoters' operation was carried on; they were not notified in any manner of the amount that the promoters were expecting to make. They severally became equitable stockholders in the new corporation, as soon as they had subscribed to the syndicate shares, and it had been determined that the operation would be carried on; they were, with the promoters, the equitable owners of the stock, and as such were entitled to be informed by the promoters of all details of the operation and of the amount of profit which they were making.””
    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.