Legal Opinion
Berland v. Mack
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 1, 1969No. Nos. 66 Civ. 1755, 1763, 1764, 1788, 1790, 1928, 1929, 1954, 1975, 2227-2229, 2278, 2394, 2562, 2668, 3538, 3961PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANSFIELD, District Judge.
We are faced with the necessity of determining whether these 18 consolidated stockholders’ actions should be maintained as class actions pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., and, if so, of deciding what notice to members of the class will satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(c) (2), F.R.Civ.P., and what parties should bear the expense of such notice.
Plaintiffs are 40 holders of common stock, and one preferred stockholder (Were), of Great American Industries (“GAI”), a Delaware corporation listed and traded upon the American Stock Exchange. Except for the preferred…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Esplin v. HirschiCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1968
- Bernard v. Beneficial Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,265 Fred Zeidman and Steven Youngelson v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Dolores DONINGER Et Al., Appellants, v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- In Re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Martha C. Kamm, a Widow v. California City Development Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.