Legal Opinion
Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 18, 1984No. 82-1200PublishedCited by 277 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brennan
The question for decision is whether Rule 28.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an investment company security holder first make a demand upon the company’s board of directors before bringing an action under § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to recover allegedly excessive fees paid by the company to its investment adviser. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit *525held in this case that the demand requirement of Rule 23.1 does not apply to such actions. Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F. 2d 250 (1982). Two other Courts of Appeals have reached a contrary…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by277 opinions
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Thompson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Richard D. BENNETT and Carole A. Bennett, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
272 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.