Legal Opinion
Howard v. Furst
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 31, 1956PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALSH, District Judge.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Their motions are granted.
This is a derivative action brought by plaintiff in behalf of Circle Wire & Cable Corporation. The defendants are directors of Circle, the corporation itself, and the Cerro de Pasco Corporation. All of the parties are citizens of New York. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77aa, on a claim that defendants solicited proxies in violation of Section 14(a) of that Act, 15…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. RigsbySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Perry O. Hooper, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Consolidated American Industries, Inc. v. Mountain States Securities CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd.District Court, D. Colorado · 1964
- Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. PortaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- Brown v. BullockDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Hoover v. AllenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.