Crosby v. Beam
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The issue before us is whether the appellees’ cause of action may be maintained as an individual action or whether dismissal was proper because the suit was not instituted as a Civ. R. 23.1 shareholder’s derivative suit.
A shareholder’s derivative action is brought by a shareholder in the name of the corporation to enforce a corporate claim.1 Such a suit is an exception to the usual'rule that a corporation’s board of directors manages or supervises the management of a corporation. A derivative action allows a shareholder to circumvent a board’s refusal to bring a suit on a claim. On the other…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
- United States v. ByrumSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Wilkes v. Springside Nursing Home, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Adair v. WozniakOhio Supreme Court · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by139 opinions
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,267 Ralph E. Aschinger v. Columbus Showcase Company, Carl J. Aschinger, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & MerklinOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Landstrom v. ShaverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.