Legal Opinion
Rosenthal v. Burry Biscuit Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided June 16, 1948PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Vice-Chancellor:
This is the decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and for the reason that the plaintiff was not a stockholder of record at the time of the transaction of which he complains.1
The factual allegations of the amended complaint are taken to be true for purposes of disposing of the motion to dismiss. I shall therefore set forth the allegations at some length.
Between April 23 and May 16, 1945, plaintiff purchased 2,500 shares of the common stock of Burry Biscuit Corporation (hereinafter called the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Sohland v. BakerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1927
- Salt Dome Oil Corp. v. SchenckSupreme Court of Delaware · 1945
- Cantor v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- In re Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Michelson v. DuncanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1979
- Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. VertinCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2014
- Alfred Blasband v. Steven M. Rales Mitchell P. Rales John Doe 1-10 Danaher Corporation, Alfred Blasband, Derivatively on Behalf of Danaher CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Kerbs v. California Eastern Airways, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1952
- Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Panhandle Eastern Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1988
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.