Legal Opinion
Milvy v. Adams
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 17, 1954PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAWSON, District Judge.
This is a derivative stockholders’ action in which a number of different motions were presented and argued before me at the same time.1
The first motions which properly should be considered are the motions to dismiss the complaint, for if the complaint does not state a cause of action, then the other motions fall by themselves.
The defendants Adams and Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company, a Delaware corporation, (hereinafter called “Associated”) have moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 23(b) of the Rules…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Venner v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Gallup v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- McQuillen v. National Cash Register Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v. Helen Shop, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Rosenfeld v. Schwitzer CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Samuel F. Stephenson, and Edward L. Stephenson, Movants-Appellants v. Karl F. LandeggerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.