Rose v. Schantz
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Grognet v. Fox Valley Trucking ServiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Timme v. KopmeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Marshfield Clinic v. DoegeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Beemis v. WylieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
- McDermott v. O'Neil Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Simmons v. MillerSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001
- Flynn v. MerrickCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Krier v. VilioneWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
- Sedco International, S. A. v. CoryDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1981
- State v. HurdCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.