Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 KAN 436 - Bicknell v. Altman

Bicknell v. Altman’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
November 1931
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Woodworth v. Bowles

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

  1. ““The present constitution limits the liability of stockholders for the debts of a corporation to the amount of their stock. (Laws 1905, ch. 542.) In 1905, when the corporation in question was created, the former constitutional provision (original § 2, art. 12) relating to an additional liability was still in force, but was not self-operating, and required an act of the legislature to give it effect. (Woodworth v. Bowles, 61 Kan. 569 .) All the statutes on the subject had been repealed. (Laws 1903, ch. 152.) In the absence of any legislation the stockholder’s responsibility to the creditors of the corporation ended when his stock had been fully paid up. (10 Cyc. 649.) The petition therefore stated no cause of action.” (p. 437.)”
    2 later decisions 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.