Legal Opinion

Kaufman v. Shoenberg

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided November 13, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Seitz, Chancellor:

Plaintiff seeks an attorney’s fee for services rendered in connection with the so-called Eleventh cause of action.

I ruled that since the corporation complied with the demand made in connection with the Eleventh cause of action within a reasonable time thereafter, the Eleventh cause should be dismissed. See Kaufman v. Shoenberg, Del.Ch., 91 A.2d 786. The question therefore is whether, as a matter of law, a stockholder is entitled to his reasonable investigation fees if his demand produces some real benefit to the corporation without the necessity for litigation. I conclude…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kaufman v. ShoenbergCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1952

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chrysler Corporation v. DannSupreme Court of Delaware · 1966
  2. Kaufman v. ShoenbergDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1954
  3. Mintz v. BohenCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
  4. Dann v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
  5. Mintz v. BohenCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API