Legal Opinion
Braddock v. Zimmerman
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided September 12, 2006No. 489, 2005PublishedCited by 106 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, Justice.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order by the Court of Chancery that granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. At issue is the legal meaning and effect of a Court of Chancery order dismissing a derivative suit “without prejudice” on Rule 23.1 “demand required” grounds. This appeal also requires our analysis of the Court of Chancery’s holding in Harris v. Carter 1 that a plaintiff does not need to make a demand before amending a derivative complaint where a new board of directors comes into power, if the amended derivative claims were…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Mrs. Carmella M. Borelli v. City of ReadingCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Brehm v. EisnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by106 opinions
- In Re infoUSA, Inc. Shareholders LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2007
- Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. WynnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. PyottCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2012
- In Re Amerco Derivative LitigationNevada Supreme Court · 2011
- Glenbrook Capital Ltd. Partnership v. DoddsNevada Supreme Court · 2011
101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.