Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hanson v. Kake Tribal Corp.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1997No. S-6189, S-6239Published

1DissentFabe, Justice

I. INTRODUCTION

I dissent from the opinion of the court because I disagree with its decision to allow plaintiffs to bring a direct rather than a derivative action. The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint is a wrong to the corporation as a whole. Basic principles of corporation law therefore require the plaintiffs to bring a derivative shareholder action to remedy that wrong. The court’s failure to adhere to this well-established rule leads it to adopt a result that rather than remedying the discriminatory plan, continues it. Under the court’s decision, shareholders who are as innocent of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Broad v. Sealaska Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  5. Alaska Plastics, Inc. v. CoppockAlaska Supreme Court · 1980

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

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

Powered by the Exa API