Legal Opinion
Cleary v. Higley
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 19, 1934PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenman, J.
The motions to dismiss the complaint as against all the defendants, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, are granted.
This is a derivative stockholders’ action brought for the benefit of Fox Film Corporation. As the proof has developed, the action is divided into two separate and distinct parts.
First, the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants all the profits made by the syndicate in the 240,000 shares of stock, totalling the sum of approximately $4,000,000. Second, the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants the damage which they claim Fox Film Corporation suffered as a…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Gamble v. Queens County Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Sage v. . CulverNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. New York & Northern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Leslie v. . LorillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Kavanaugh v. . Kavanaugh Knitting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
- Kaminsky v. KahnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Blaustein v. Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Blaustein v. Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Hellenic Lines Limited v. WinklerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.