Kaufman v. Shoenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. (1985), Cheff v. Mathes (1964)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 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
Relies on Kaufman v. Shoenberg
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhether, as a matter of law, a stockholder is entitled to his reasonable investigation fees if his demand produces some real benefit to the corporation without the necessity for litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mintz v. Bohen · Bird v. Lida, Inc.“[Substantially the same benefit accrues to the corporation whether it be as a result of the demand or of successful litigation. To grant a fee based upon legitimate investigation expenses in connection with a successful demand is to discourage litigation and yet encourage stockholder vigilance, without unduly prejudicing the general corporate welfare.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bird v. Lida, Inc.
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.