Opdyke v. Security Savings & Loan Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
Prom the foregoing statement of facts, it is apparent that the proceedings taken for the conversion of defendant corporation into a federal savings and loan association fully complied with the requirements of Section 9660-2, General Code, and with the applicable federal laws and rules and regulations thereunder. However, plaintiffs contend that, since Section 9660-2, General Code, was not enacted until 1934, which was 18 years after the incorporation of defendant corporation, the provisions of that statute cannot be applied so as to alter the rights of stockholders against the corporation or…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Newton v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Belden v. Union Central Life Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
- Shields v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Lauman v. Lebanon Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.