Legal Opinion

Grogan v. O'NEIL

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided November 21, 2003No. CIV.A. 03-2091-KHVPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VRATIL, District Judge.

For himself and on behalf of similarly situated class members, David Grogan brings suit against Timothy P. O’Neil, Roy R. Laborde, William D. Cox, Harold C. Hill, Jr., Clark D. Stewart, and David D. Taggart for breach of corporate fiduciary duty (Count I). Plaintiff also brings derivative claims on behalf of TransFinancial Holdings, Inc. (“TransFinancial”) for corporate waste (Count II) and violation of Delaware statutory law, Del.Code Ann., tit. 8, § 271 (Count III). 1 This matter is before the Court on the Individual Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  4. Brehm v. EisnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  5. Gff Corporation, an Oklahoma Corporation v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., a Missouri CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rubio Ex Rel. Z.R. v. Turner Unified School District No. 202District Court, D. Kansas · 2007
  2. Rubio Ex Rel. Z.R. v. Turner Unified School District No. 202District Court, D. Kansas · 2006
  3. Becher v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2019
  4. Antimo, LLC v. Brendan ReichDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API