Legal Opinion
Frank v. Carlisle
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 13, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGlennon, J.
This is a stockholders’ derivative suit. The amended complaint sets forth two causes of action. These, Qaus.es *15of action embrace, in substance, what have been styled as the “ Oswego,” the “ Grasse River ” and the “ miscellaneous transactions.” A summary of the allegations contained in the original complaint, in so far as it pertains to the “ Oswego ” matter, is set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals under the title of Frank v. Carlisle (282 N. Y. 507).
The “ Grasse River ” transaction grows out of the purchase by a syndicate of some of the defendants in 1923 of 28,000 acres of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Potter v. WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Cwerdinski v. BentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Cwerdinski v. Bent, GraceNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Jno. Dunlop's Sons, Inc. v. DunlopAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
- Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
- Scott v. AllenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Stichman v. FischmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957