Legal Opinion

Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 2007No. TC 0011-11691; CA A123575; TC 0011-11695; CA A123576; SC S53170PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

This shareholder derivative action requires us to decide whether plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees remains jus-ticiable after defendants took actions that rendered the underlying substantive claims moot. For the reasons that follow, we answer that question in the affirmative.

Plaintiffs were shareholders of Willamette Industries, Inc. They filed separate actions against certain of Willamette’s officers and directors seeking to remove corporate takeover defenses that Willamette had adopted and to force defendants to negotiate with Weyerhaeuser Co., which had made an offer to acquire…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Deras v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1997
  3. Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, Local Union No. 701Oregon Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Kay v. David Douglas School District No. 40Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Strunk v. Public Employees Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 2006

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Underwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2011
  2. Crandon Capital Partners v. ShelkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. Moro v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Pendleton School Dist. v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  5. Nordbye v. BRCP/GM EllingtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

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

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

Powered by the Exa API