Legal Opinion
Nienaber v. Katz
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided February 24, 1942No. 6050PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This is an appeal on questions of law and fact from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court for the defendants, entered on their demurrer to the plaintiff’s second amended petition. It is now before this court on that demurrer.
The plaintiff, as a stockholder, is seeking to enforce for and on behalf of The Gfruen Watch Company a cause of action which he alleges it has against the other defendants. It is a “stockholder’s action” asserting a derivative right. The demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the second amended petition in several respects.(1) It is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wendt v. FischerNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- State Ex Rel. Talaba v. MorelandOhio Supreme Court · 1936
- Western States Life Ins. Co. v. LockwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Bohannon v. TaylorOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Bristol v. ScrantonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Rachel Castner v. First National Bank of Anchorage, Arctic Cold Storage, Inc., and Union Bank of AnchorageCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1960
- Yoder v. T.E.L. Leasing, Inc. (In Re Suburban Motor Freight, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1991
- Radol v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
- Thompson v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.