Legal Opinion
Danziger v. Luse
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 13, 2004No. 2002-1880PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
{¶ 1} The issue in this case is whether appellants have a right to inspect the records of a wholly owned subsidiary of the company in which they own stock. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that they do.
{¶ 2} Appellants Jared, Nathan, and Samuel Danziger own stock in Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (“the company”), which has one operating asset, Croghan Colonial Bank (“the bank”). The bank has only one stockholder, the company. In February 2001, the Danzigers sent a letter to the company demanding to review the corporate minutes of the company and the bank. When the company failed to respond,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Martin v. D. B. Martin Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1913
- Bresnik v. Beulah Park Ltd. Partnership, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Carapico v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2000
- William Coale Development Co. v. KennedyOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- Williams v. Freeport Sulphur Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- James T. Corrigan v. United States Steel Corporation Kobe Steel, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Feuer v. Merck & Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2018
- New 52 Project v. Proctor, 07ap-487 (2-7-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- No-Burn, Inc. v. MuratiOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Ashley Bancstock Co. v. MeredithCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.