Legal Opinion
Root v. York Corporation
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided July 31, 1944No. Civil Action 409PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
1. What plaintiffs seek is the cash payment in full for the value of their stock. There is respectable authority for the rule that a dissenting stockholder can not demand of the resultant company payment in cash for his shares where the merger is a lawful one, unless it is otherwise provided by statute. See Fletcher, Private Corporations, Perm.Ed., § 7164. In Hottenstein v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, 3 Cir., 136 F.2d 944, 953, Judge Biggs stated: * * * A court of the United States bound by the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins [304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanssenSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Consumers Finance Service, Inc. of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1938
- Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Robb v. Eastgate Hotel, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1952
- Langfelder v. Universal Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1946
- Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
- Massey v. FarnsworthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1961
- Root v. York Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.