Legal Opinion

Sorin v. Sharmoon

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1956PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J.

This is a stockholders’ derivative action. Defendants move pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. They also move on affidavits (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107) for a dismissal of each of the two causes of action set forth in the complaint asserting, in one instance, that suit is premature and, in the other, that plaintiffs acquired their stock too late.

Plaintiffs allege that they became owners of stock in defendant corporation in March, 1954. Prior thereto and up to the present it is alleged…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Pepper v. LittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Sage v. . CulverNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  3. Kavanaugh v. . Kavanaugh Knitting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  4. Myer v. MyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
  5. Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Bauer v. Servel, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API