Legal Opinion
Malcolm v. Cities Service Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided June 9, 1942No. Civil Action No. 213PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
On April 5, 1940, the plaintiff, a stockholder of Toledo Edison Company,1 brought a class action for an accounting for alleged diversion of assets of Toledo. The original complaint was dismissed without prejudice because of misjoinder of parties. On May 15, 1941 a new complaint was filed. Various motions have been filed by the defendants asking for bills of particulars; but these motions have never been brought on for hearing. Issue has not, as yet, been joined.
The former attorneys for the plaintiff are the petitioners in the present proceeding.2 Their petition states…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- May v. Midwest Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Piccard v. Sperry CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Heesch v. Pittsburgh Steel Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harry Lewis v. Al KnutsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Webster Eisenlohr, Inc. v. KalodnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
- Heckmann v. AhmansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Firestone v. WileyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
- Bookman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.