Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lukas Ex Rel. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. v. McPeak

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided September 19, 2013No. 12-6285Published

1Dissent

DOWD, D., District Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly found that Plaintiff, in a shareholder derivative action, failed to adequately allege an excuse for pre-suit demand under Tennessee Rule 23.1 and Tenn. Ann.Code § 48-17-401(b). The decision turns upon the question, “What is the Tennessee substantive law requirement for pleading futility of demand?” To put the questions in terms of the parties’ arguments, “Is the Tennessee law of refusal governed by older decisional law, or by a Delaware standard referenced in a Tennessee…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  4. Lehman Brothers v. ScheinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API