Legal Opinion

Rosenfeld v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 8, 1955PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.

In a stockholder’s derivative action brought by plaintiff, an attorney, who owns 25 out of the company’s over 2,300,000 shares, he seeks to compel the return of $261,522, paid out of the corporate treasury to reimburse both sides in a proxy contest for their expenses. The Appellate Division has unanimously affirmed a judgment of an Official Referee dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits, and we agree. Exhaustive opinions were written by both courts below, and it will serve no useful purpose to review the facts again.

Of the amount in controversy $106,000 were spent out of corporate…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Steinberg v. AdamsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1950
  2. Empire Southern Gas Co. v. GrayCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1946
  3. Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight Picture Screen Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
  4. Hand v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1944
  5. Lawyers' Advertising Co. v. Consolidated Railway Lighting & Refrigerating Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1907

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
  2. Cohen v. AyersDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1978
  3. Field v. LewDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1960
  4. Braude v. HavennerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. Selama-Dindings Plantations, Ltd. v. DurhamDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1963

13 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