Legal Opinion
Sandor Schwartz v. Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 26, 1959No. 85, Docket 25219PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Chief Judge.
The issues on this appeal arise in a derivative action brought by plaintiff, as a stockholder of The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., against Alleghany Corpora*196tion, various past and present directors of C & 0 and of Alleghany, and two other individuals, Clinton W. Murchison and Sidney W. Richardson, with C & 0 also named as defendant. ’ Summons and complaint were served on defendants Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus- S. Eaton, Jr., appellees here, in Cleveland, Ohio, pursuant to the provisions of § 44 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80a — 43.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Julius Nagler v. Admiral CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- In the Matter of Emanuel JosephsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1954
- Nicola Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, (Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., a Corporation)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. HerrmannCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Leist v. SimplotCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Brown v. BullockCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Brown v. BullockDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Oxford First Corp. v. PNC Liquidating Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.