White v. Panic’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 16 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc. (2004), Beam Ex Rel. M. Stewart Living v. Stewart (2004)
3 federal appellate · 16 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Relies on Aronson v. Lewis · Brehm v. Eisner · Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc. · In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation · 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The policy against permitting stockholder plaintiffs to amend their complaints after an unsuccessful appeal encourages the plaintiff to investigate their claims before | isfiling a complaint so that they have a basis at the outset to make particularized factual allegations in the complaint. In contrast, if plaintiffs were granted leave to amend after an unsuccessful appeal, plaintiffs would have a reduced incentive to ensure that their original complaints are complete from the start.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n determining demand futility the [court] in the proper exercise of its discretion must decide whether, under the particularized facts alleged, a reasonable doubt is created that ... the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“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.”
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.