Legal Opinion
Schleiff v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 8, 1967No. Nos. 64 Civ. 3478, 64 Civ. 3477, 64 Civ. 3785 and 64 Civ. 3855PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WYATT, District Judge.
This is an application under Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for approval of a compromise of these four derivative actions brought by shareholders of The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (B & O). The defendants are The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (C & O) and B & O itself, for whose benefit the actions were brought. In one of the actions (No. IV), a number of individual defendants were named; these were said to have been directors of B & O at various times and some of them were also said to have been directors of C & O.
By order filed May 9,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Western Pacific Railroad Corp. v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Glicken v. BradfordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Western Pac R.R. Corp. v. Western Pac. R. Co. Metzger v. Western Pac. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Masterson v. PergamentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
- Winkelman v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,547 Arthur Newman v. Howard M. Stein, and Morrie Benson and Rose Lerman, Objectants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- State of West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
- John Patterson v. Roy Stovall, William P. Corkill, Objectors-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Oppenlander v. Standard Oil Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1974
- Village of Kaktovik v. WattCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.