 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Brehm v. Eisner, No. 469, 1998,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 9, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholder derivative suit partially dismissed with prejudice for failing to plead with particularity claim that directors were disinterested and violated business judgment rule by approving extravagant employment agreement.
|
|||||
| Kortum v. Webasto Sunroofs Inc., Civil Action No. 17237,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 9, 2000, Date Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Director and 50 percent stockholder's inspection rights were unrestricted because corporation did not rebut presumption that a sitting director is entitled to access books and records of the corporation for which he sits.
|
|||||
| National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, Civil Action No. 1998-09-094,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 9, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vehicle owner negligently entrusted vehicle to driver, who cause an accident, where witness saw driver in vehicle on numerous occasions prior to accident and defendant admitted to leaving driver in running vehicle.
|
|||||
| State of Wis. Inv. Bd. v. Bartlett, C.A. No. 17727,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 9, 2000, Submitted , February 9, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A shareholder vote was enjoined and postponed for 15 days or until an agreed upon later time in order to assure that shareholders had adequate time to assimilate information necessary for them to cast an informed vote.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
