green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
8.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
'In derivative suits . . . the corporation which benefits from the suit . . . is directed to pay (attorneys' fees).'
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“In derivative suits . the corporation which benefits from the suit ... is directed to pay [attorneys’ fees].”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“it is not entirely clear, in light of the above and the ever-increasing role of taxation in every area of activity, that the same result would obtain in these early cases [Untermyer and others] were they before the Court today.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Proof of reliance is not an independent element which must be alleged to establish a cause of action.”
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceutical, Inc.
suit brought as a class action should be treated as such for purposes of dismissal or compromise, until there is a full determination that the class action is not proper.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation
whether there is a proper class does not depend on the existence of a cause of action
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Estate of Jane B. Ceppi, Deceased. Peter B. Ceppi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
it is not entirely clear, in light of the above and the ever-increasing role of taxation in every area of activity, that the same result would obtain in these early cases were they before the court today.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc.
in derivative suits . the corporation which benefits from the suit ... is directed to pay .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,925 Jean Whitehouse Ramey v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Angiolina Morelli v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Albert Harris v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Jean W. Ramey v. The E. W. Scripps Company, Cecil F. Schoen, A.K.A. Cecile F. Schoen, and Cross-Appellee v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and Cross-Appellants (3 Cases)
in derivative suits . . . the corporation which benefits from the suit . . . is directed to pay (attorneys' fees).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dorfman v. First Boston Corp.
proof of reliance is not an independent element which must be alleged to establish a cause of action.
discussed
Cited "see"
Seidman v. American Mobile Systems, Inc.
See Kahan v. Ro-senstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.) (“A suit may be a proper class action, conforming to Rule 23, and still be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.”), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); In re Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 86-1656, 1990 WL 1478 , at *2 (E.D.Pa.
cited
Cited "see"
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation
See Id. (citing Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); see also Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94, 101 (10th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 928 , 89 S.Ct. 1194 , 22 L.Ed.2d 459 (1969)).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re VMS Securities Litigation
See Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 785 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 , 106 S.Ct. 342 , 88 L.Ed.2d 290 (1985), (“... the effectiveness of the securities laws may depend in large measure on the application of the class action device”), citing Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Grossman v. Waste Management, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 781, 784 (N.D.Ill.1984) (there is a strong policy favoring class actions in securities fraud litigation), citing King v. Kansas City South ena Industries, 519 F.2d 20, 25-26 (7th…
cited
Cited "see"
Joy Manufacturing Corp. v. Pullman-Peabody Co.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970) and Koppel v. Wien, 743 F.2d 129 (2d Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Stanley Phillips v. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); C.
cited
Cited "see"
Phillips v. Allegheny County
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); C.
cited
Cited "see"
Spivak v. Petro-Lewis Corp.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3rd Cir.1970), cert. denied 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Spivak v. Petro-Lewis Corp.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3rd Cir.1970), cert. denied 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph Catullo, Etc. v. Sidney S. Metzner, Appeal of Philip E. Roberts and Harry A. Ezratty. Joseph Catullo, Etc. v. Sidney S. Metzner, Conservit, Inc.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 165-66 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t would be unjust to require one party to bear the entire expense which necessarily results in a benefit to a large class of persons.") (emphasis added), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Catullo v. Metzner
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 165-66 (3d Cir.) (“[I]t would be unjust to require one party to bear the entire expense which necessarily results in a benefit to a large class of persons.’’) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph v. General Motors Corp.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Chestnut Fleet Rentals, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 72 F.R.D. 541, 543 (E.D.Pa.1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jane Doe v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 926 (2d Cir.1968) (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original); see Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 174 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Logan v. General Fireproofing Co., 521 F.2d 881 , 884 n. 3 (4th Cir.1971); Sapp v. Renfroe, 511 F.2d 172 , 176 n. 3 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gaston v. Calhoun County Board of Education
It is well settled that “[a] complaint that contains class allegations is presumed to be a proper class suit between the time it is filed and the district court determines whether it satisfies the requirements of rule 23.” McArthur v. Southern Airways, Inc., 556 F.2d 298, 302 (5 Cir. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 569 F.2d 276 (5 Cir. 1978); see Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161,169 (3 Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Glen Alden Corp. v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); 7A C.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Fine Paper Litigation State of Washington, No. 79-2738. State of New York
They may challenge the adequacy of representation by the plaintiff, see Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Cooperative Association, 395 F.2d 420 (3d Cir. 1968); in some circumstances, they may have a right to be informed of, or be included in, a settlement, Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., 582 F.2d 1298 (4th Cir. 1978); Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 42 F.R.D. 324 (E.D.Pa.1967); see Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); and, perhaps most importantly, the statute of limitations may be tolled during the p…
cited
Cited "see"
Hospital Data Center of S.C., Inc. v. United States
See First Nat’l Bank in Dallas v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 400, 411 , 420 F.2d 725, 731 , cert, denied, 398 U.S. 950 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Initio, Inc. v. Hesse
See, Kahan v. Rosensteil, 424 F.2d 161 (C.A.3), cert. den., 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Crane Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Company, 419 F.2d 787 (C.A.2, 1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
(2×)
See note 26, infra. On this appeal, the Government asserts that Peacock’s testimony was admissible under the rule that evidence of commission of other crimes closely related in both time and nature to the crime charged may be admitted to establish identity, Halfen v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 556, 558 , cert. denied, 1964, 376 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 704 , 11 L.Ed.2d 653 , guilty knowledge, United States v. Dryden, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 1175, 1178 , cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1869 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 , intent, United States v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 1266, 1270 , cert. de…
cited
Cited "see"
Independent Investor Protective League and Martin F. Randolph, Jr., and I. Walton Bader v. Touche Ross & Company
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); B & B Investment Club v. Kleinert’s Inc., 62 F.R.D. 140, 144 (E.D.Pa.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harriman v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
See, Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Britt v. Cyril Bath Co., 417 F.2d 433, 436 (6th Cir. *158 1969); Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco, Inc., 384 F.2d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 1973). b) The Alleged Scheme to Defraud 126 Plaintiffs have argued the negotiation of the proposed merger constituted a scheme to defraud Du Pont’s public stockholders for the benefit of its controlling persons, namely Christiana and its affiliated persons.
cited
Cited "see"
Fox v. Prudent Resources Trust
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Glen Alden Corp. v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Odette v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc.
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F. 161 , 174 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970) ; 10 Wright and Miller, supra, § 2662. 17 .
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,150 Oliver R. Grace v. Daniel K. Ludwig
See Stolberg v. Board of Trustees, 474 F.2d 485 (2d Cir. 1973) and Kahan v. Rosensteil, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Milstein v. Werner
See Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 167 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Fischman v. Wexler, 309 F.Supp. 976, 979 (D.Del.1970); Globus, Inc. v. Jar-off, 279 F.Supp. 807 (S.D.N.Y.1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.
See, Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Entel v. Allen, 270 F.Supp. 60, 68-70 (S.D.N.Y.1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk
It is not necessary that factually there be absolute assurance of ultimate success, but only that there be some reasonable hope.” Id.; see also Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F2d 161, 167 (3d Cir), cert den, 398 US 950 (1970) (noting that “[i]n several cases which became moot, courts have said suits were ‘meritorious’ if they could have survived a motion to dismiss”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mobley v. United States
See also First National Bank v. United States, 420 F.2d 725, 730 , 190 Ct.Cl. 400 (1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1868 , 26 L.Ed.2d 289 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Warner Communications, Inc. v. Murdoch
See, e.g., Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 172-73 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco, Inc., 384 F.2d 540, 546-47 (2d Cir.1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Beebe v. Pacific Realty Trust
See also Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 173-74 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970) (applying Mills rationale in 10b-5 action).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Steiner v. Equimark Corp.
See also Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).' Therefore, a brief summary of Plaintiffs’ allegations will suffice for purposes of the Motion before us.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. B & O Railroad
See, e. g., Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970); Halverson v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 458 F.2d 927 (7th Cir. 1972).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School
See also Kahan v. Rosenstiel (3d Cir. 1970), 424 F.2d 161, 173-74 , cert. denied (1970), 398 U.S. 950 , 26 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Magana v. Platzer Shipyard, Inc.
See, e. g., Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970) (settlement and dismissal); Duncan v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 66 F.R.D. 615 (E.D.Wis.1975) (settlement and dismissal); Rotzenburg v. Neenah Joint School Diet., 64 F.R.D. 181, 182 (E.D.Wis. 1974) (settlement and dismissal); Held v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 64 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.Tex.1974) (settlement and dismissal); Rothman v. Gould, 52 F.R.D. 494, 496 (S.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Goodall v. Columbia Ventures, Inc.
See also, Kahan v. Rosenthiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970). 20 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,405 Joe L. Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Company, Southdown, Inc., Zapata Norness, Inc., Albert J. Rangeand D. Doyle Mize
See also Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 3 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 161, 173 , cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 ; General Time Corp. v. Talley Industries, Inc., 2 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 159 , cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1026 , 89 S.Ct. 631 , 21 L.Ed.2d 570 ; Ruckle v. Roto American Corp., 2 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 24 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Saint Joseph's College v. Morrison, Inc.
See, e.g., Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F. 2d 161, 167 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, Glen Alden Corp. v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S. Ct. 1870 , 26 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Unida v. Volpe
See, e. g., Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 167 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, Glen Alden Corp. v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970) ; Knight v. Auciello, 453 F.2d 852 (1st Cir. 1972). 2) The “common fund” situation.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kenneth j.yablonski and Joseph A. Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America
See also Kahan v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, Glen Alden Corp. *432 v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970), where the Third Circuit authorized attorney’s fees in respect of a suit which had become moot because of the concessions made by the defendants in response to the filing of the complaint.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dyer v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company
Compare Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco, Inc., 384 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1967) and Kalian v. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, Glen Alden Corp. v. Kahan, 398 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 1870 , 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wascher
v.
Lundeen
v.
Lundeen
No. 1451.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 8, 1970.
App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.