Legal Opinion

Rose v. Schantz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1972No. 215PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

The demurrer here challenged: (1) The derivative cause of action; (2) the direct stockholder action; and (3) the joinder of causes of actions and parties. Each involves a separate area of inquiry, and will be so approached.

Derivative action.

We deal here with the statutory restrictions surrounding the bringing of stockholders’ derivative actions. 1 Particularly, we deal with sec. 180.405 (1) (b), Stats., requiring in any such action that:

“(1) No action may be instituted or maintained in the right of any domestic or foreign corporation by the holder or holders of shares or of voting trust…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Grognet v. Fox Valley Trucking ServiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Timme v. KopmeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Marshfield Clinic v. DoegeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Beemis v. WylieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
  5. McDermott v. O'Neil Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Simmons v. MillerSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001
  2. Flynn v. MerrickCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
  3. Krier v. VilioneWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Sedco International, S. A. v. CoryDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1981
  5. State v. HurdCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986

45 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