Howard v. Haddad’s Empirical Analysis
916 F.2d 167 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2014
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1821 · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Randall v. Loftsgaarden · Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox · Roeder v. Alpha Industries, Inc. · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Jenkins · Federal Deposit Insurance v. American Bank Trust Shares, 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A derivative action is one in which the right claimed by the shareholder is one the corporation could itself have enforced in court. In other words, an action is derivative if it seeks damages arising from an injury to the corporation. Each shareholder of the Bank may well have a valid cause of action against the directors for the decline in the stock’s value, and such action would be derivative. However, [the defendant] mistakenly ... characterizes [the plaintiffs claims] as also premised on corporate mismanagement. The reasons for the alleged worthlessness of the stocks purchased by [the plaintiff] are essentially irrelevant to his claims. What is essential [to plaintiffs claims] is his allegation that the defendants knew of the lack of value, yet fraudulently represented to [him] that the bank [in which he invested] was in fine shape.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Howard’s claims on the defendants’ assets do not ... arise out of his status as a Bank shareholder; again, it was the allegedly fraudulent inducements to buy the stock that form the basis of his claims. We cannot see why the fact of liquidation should somehow act to deprive Howard of these causes of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“What is essential is [Howard’s] allegation that the defendants knew of the lack of value, yet fraudulently represented to Howard that the bank was in fine shape.... The mere fact that Howard and the FDIC are pursuing the same source of assets does not transform Howard’s action to a derivative one.”
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.