Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 F.2d 521 - Wm Phillips v. Chevron Usa Inc

Wm Phillips v. Chevron Usa Inc’s Empirical Analysis

792 F.2d 521 · 1986

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2008

2 district · 1 state decisions

50198619902000decided

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 Weaver v. Graham · Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc. · Arnott v. American Oil Co. · Walker v. U-Haul Co. · 497 F. Supp. 858 - Picture Lake Campground, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the parties, in seeking their individualized interests, comply with the terms of a contract in which they are also the parties, it would be difficult to find a breach of a fiduciary duty. Although fiduciaries have mutual interests, they also have individual goals. If part of their relationship is set out in a contract, the parties have affirmatively recognized, in part, those individual interests. Unless the contracted terms are unconscionable, illegal, or violative of public policy, fiduciaries, as a practical matter, acknowledge that activity in conformance with the terms of the contract cannot amount to misconduct that constitutes a breach of a fiduciary duty.”
    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.