Legal Opinion
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Palley
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided May 25, 1973PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
•HERRMANN, Justice:
In this stockholder’s derivative action brought on behalf of Hycon Mfg. Company (hereinafter “Hycon”), the defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation (hereinafter “McDonnell”) appeals from an allowance against it of counsel fees and legal expenses to the plaintiff stockholder. The issue is not the amount of the allowance but its propriety under the facts and circumstances of this case. A basic circumstance is that the suit became moot by reason of subsequent action taken by McDonnell.
The facts are set forth at length in the Opinion below. See Del.Ch., 295 A.2d 762. Reference…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Alexander Kahan, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lewis RosenstielCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Levitt v. BouvierSupreme Court of Delaware · 1972
- Sinclair Oil Corporation v. LevienSupreme Court of Delaware · 1971
- Chrysler Corporation v. DannSupreme Court of Delaware · 1966
- Rosenthal v. Burry Biscuit Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Tandycrafts, Inc. v. Initio PartnersSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
- Sugarland Industries, Inc. v. ThomasSupreme Court of Delaware · 1980
- Allied Artists Pictures Corp. v. BaronSupreme Court of Delaware · 1980
- Koppel v. WienCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Emak Worldwide, Inc. v. KurzSupreme Court of Delaware · 2012
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.