Griffin v. Box’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 255 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78L (§ 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on University of Texas v. Camenisch · Gulbenkian v. Penn · Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. · Arnold v. National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. · Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here are four elements a movant must establish to obtain a preliminary injunction: (1) that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that there is a substantial likelihood that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) that any threatened injury outweighs the damage the injunction might cause the opponent; and (4) that the injunction will not dis-serve the public interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“20 We find that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the conversion to a corporate form. The theory that transferees gained a right to vote without approval as substitute limited partners by waiver has no legal basis and plaintiffs have no likelihood of prevailing. Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis for finding detrimental reliance upon any authorized assurance that transferees had voting rights. 21 A panel of this court held in Griffin I that the partnership agreement was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Griffin v. Box“to take certain actions by written consents. Id. at 257. Despite the general partners' efforts to block the voting, the plaintiffs obtained over fifty percent of the outstanding votes and filed documents with the Texas Secretary of State to amend the partnership agreement in accordance with the vote. Id. at 258. The general partners sought injunctive relief to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with management, which was granted upon the district court's finding that the receipt holders were not”
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.