Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,603, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,705 Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corporation, Robert W. Browne, Daniel Cowin and Philip Dejourno, Care Corporation, Robert W. Browne and Philip Dejourno, Counterclaim v. Fair Lanes, Inc., Treadway Companies, Inc., Daniel Parke Lieblich, John R. McDonnell Simon Gluckman, Norman Brassler, Murray L. Cole, Samuel B. Dobrow and Bernard Mills, Counterclaim Care Corporation and Philip Dejourno, Suing Derivatively in the Right and for the Benefit of Treadway Companies, Inc., Counterclaim v. Fair Lanes, Inc., Daniel Parke Lieblich, John R. McDonnell Simon Gluckman, Norman Brassler, Murray L. Cole, Samuel B. Dobrow and Bernard Mills, Counterclaim and Treadway Companies, Inc., Nominal Counterclaim

1980-11-17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · United States

read the judgment

12What it rests on

3Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19811 judgments19841 judgments19851 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 1981–1985

first 1981 · last 1985 · busiest 1981 (1 judgments)

1985-11-20John A. MORAN and the Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation, Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, and Gretl Golter, Individually and in a Derivative Capacity, Plaintiff Intervenor Below-Appellant, v. HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Donald C. Clark, Thomas D. Flynn, Mary Johnston Evans, William D. Hendry, Joseph W. James, Mitchell P. Kartalia, Gordon P. Osler, Arthur E. Rasmussen, George W. Rauch, James M. Tait, Miller Upton, Bernard F. Brennan and Gary G. Dillon, Defendants Below-AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1984-06-21Bernard POGOSTIN, Ann Brown and Irwin J. Newman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. W. Thomas RICE, Eliot H. Stein, Fred Sullivan, A. Lightfoot Walker, Arthur C. Babson, Francis L. Cappaert, Edwin I. Hatch, Peter C. Huang, George T. Scharfenberger, Joe E. Lonning, Daniel E. Lyons, Stephen E. O’Neil, Eben W. Pyne, John H. Washburn and City Investing Company, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1981-07-06Ruth PANTER Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARSHALL FIELD & CO. Et Al., Defendants-Appellees; Richard WEISS Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARSHALL FIELD & CO., Defendants-AppelleesSeventh Circuit

What it rests on

1977-10-20Charles KAPLAN, Plaintiff, v. Robert S. GOLDSAMT, Bernard J. Korman, Alan B. Miller, Leonard W. Cronkhite, Jr., Thomas L. Kempner, Leonard M. Leiman, Louis Rones, J. Irving Schwartz, Joseph Ziegler and American Medicorp, Inc., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1975-07-29George S. PETTY, Plaintiff, v. PENNTECH PAPERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1975-06-17Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.Supreme Court of the United States 1971-06-18SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Francis S. LEVIEN, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1970-01-26MILLS Et Al. v. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1967-06-02CONDEC CORPORATION, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff, v. the LUNKENHEIMER COMPANY, U. S. Industries, Inc. and U. S. Industrial Corporation, Delaware Corporations, DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1964-06-08J. I. CASE CO. Et Al. v. BORAKSupreme Court of the United States 1964-03-17Cheff v. MathesSupreme Court of Delaware 1962-12-28Bennett v. ProppSupreme Court of Delaware 1960-02-18Kors v. CareyCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1950-02-09Johan M. Andersen & Others vs. Albert & J. M. Anderson Manufacturing Company & OthersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1921-01-24Geddes Et Al. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Company Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

42 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.