Richman v. DeVal Aerodynamics, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
Cohen and Morris, counsel for Jacob S. Richman, plaintiff in the above-named action, now petition this court for an award of reasonable compensation from the funds of DeVal Aerodynamics, Inc. (“DeVal”) for their services in this litigation in behalf of Richman and all other stockholders similarly situated. DeVal resists the petition and urges (1) that this court is without jurisdiction to make such an award and (2) that plaintiff has acted solely in the interest of a certain limited group of stockholders and therefore has conferred no benefit either on the corporation itself…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1953
- Bosch v. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Philip Schechtman v. Louis E. WolfsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Mencher v. SachsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
- Mencher v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chrysler Corporation v. DannSupreme Court of Delaware · 1966
- Holden v. Construction MacHinery CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. PalleySupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
- Richman v. DeVal Aerodynamics, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
- Dann v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.