Legal Opinion
W. Raymond Denney v. Phillips & Buttorff Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 8, 1964No. 15491_1PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
This appeal involves an ancillary proceeding growing out of a stockholders’ derivative action previously before this Court in Maggiore v. Bradford, 6 Cir., 310 F.2d 519. This appeal is from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee allowing fees and expenses to the attorneys who represented the minority stockholders in the original action. In this action the attorneys are the petitioners-appel-lees and Phillips & Buttorff Corporation is the respondent-appellant. We will refer to them as the petitioners and respondent, respectively.
The derivative action…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Southern v. Beeler, Atty.-Gen.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1946
- Grant v. Lookout Mountain Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1894
- Mrs. Guilberta Dakin Maggiore v. J. C. BradfordCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- Koppel v. WienCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Milstein v. WernerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- Nielsen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,925 Jean Whitehouse Ramey v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Angiolina Morelli v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Albert Harris v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and American Financial Corporation,defendants-Appellants. Jean W. Ramey v. The E. W. Scripps Company, Cecil F. Schoen, A.K.A. Cecile F. Schoen, and Cross-Appellee v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., and Cross-Appellants (3 Cases)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.