Arent v. Distribution Sciences, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 1370 · 1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 30 Cal. 4th 167 - Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003), Holmes v. Grubman (2009)
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 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 Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Morton v. Becker · Fuddruckers Inc v. Doc's Br Others Inc · Richfield Bank & Trust Co. v. Sjogren
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiffs were not harmed because they were unable to realize the true value of their stock — they were harmed because the true value of their stock was zero [or in this case, less than $17.25 per share]. ‘Diminution in value of the corporate assets is insufficient direct harm to give the shareholder standing to sue in his own right’. Flynn v. Merrick, 881 F.2d 446, 449 (7th Cir.1989). “Plaintiffs argue that they would have sold their LAN stock had they known that the merger would not occur. But if everyone had known this adverse fact, then the stock’s value would have reflected the adversity. Only if plaintiffs were the only ones DSI told, so that they could have improperly traded on inside information in dealing with third party purchasers, would disclosure have aided their investment fortunes. Compare Crocker [v. FDIC ], 826 F.2d [347], at 351-52 [(5th Cir.1987)]. “The Seventh Circuit made this point succinctly in Kagan [v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 690, 692 (1990)]: ‘The difficulty with [plaintiffs’] position is that the deceit is not coupled with the injury.’ 907 F.2d at 692 . The injury in this case was caused not by DSI’s alleged non-disclosure, but by the demise of LAN. That is a derivative injury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Money which might have been distributed among them as dividends has been wasted. The value of all the stock has been diminished. The injury to each stockholder is of the same character.' Whether the guilty officers were animated by hostility towards a particular stockholder or by greed, or were merely improvident, the result is the same and affects all the stockholders alike.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether a suit may be brought as an individual action or only as a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation turns on whether the plaintiff has suffered an injury distinct from that incurred by the corporation.”
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.