Schoon v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably CML V, LLC v. Bax (2011), Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Englard (2010)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 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 Aronson v. Lewis · Guth v. Loft, Inc. · Brehm v. Eisner · Weinberger v. UOP, Inc. · Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The stockholder’s derivative suit was created in equity in the first half of the nineteenth century. Its initial purpose was to provide the stockholder a right to call to account his directors for their management of the corporation, analo gous to the right of a trust beneficiary to call his trustee to account for the management of the trust corpus. 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In any derivative suit instituted by a stockholder of a corporation, it shall be averred in the complaint that the plaintiff was a stockholder of the corporation at the time of the transaction of which such stockholder complains or that such stockholder’s stock .thereafter devolved upon such stockholder by operation of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Gheewalla confers standing upon creditors to bring a derivative action where the corporation is insolvent, but only because the shareholders of an insolvent corporation no longer have an economic interest in the corporate entity— only its creditors have that interest. Only for that reason and in that context does Gheewalla permit creditors to stand in the shoes of the shareholders.”); In re MS55, No. 06-CV-01233-EWN, 2008 WL 2358699 , at (D.Col. June 6, 2008) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.