Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Weisman

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 14, 1960PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HERLANDS, District Judge.

This motion to compel the plaintiffs in a stockholders’ derivative action to post security under Section 61-b of the New York General Corporation Law requires a consideration and application of the factors determining when and in what amount such security should be furnished. Since the controlling desiderata come into play only in the context of a particular litigation, it is necessary to subject the facts to close examination.

This stockholders’ derivative action, commenced on November 30, 1959, is brought by two minority shareholders of Crane Carrier Industries, Inc.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  3. Jane Perlman v. C. Russell Feldmann, Newport Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
  4. Sandor Schwartz v. Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
  5. Fielding v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brown v. BullockDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
  2. Cyclops Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Marks v. SeedmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
  4. Industrial Electronics Associates, Inc. v. PoteatDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API