Legal Opinion

McLain v. Lanova Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided October 4, 1944PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harrington, Chancellor:

The question is whether the defendants, William Mertens, Jr., Daniel J. Riesner, Hans Fischer and William S. Murray, Jr., were legally elected directors of the Lanova Corporation at the annual stockholders’ meeting, held March 21st, 1944. They were candidates for these offices on the so-called management ticket, and were duly declared elected by a plurality of all the *178votes cast at that meeting. But the petitioners claim that numerous votes cast by proxies were illegally rejected, and that Henry Flood, Jr., Frank Woodman, Ervin L. Hall and Alanson Wilson, who were voted…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In re Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
  2. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  3. Atterbury v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
  4. Triplex Shoe Co. v. Rice & Hutchins, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1930
  5. In re Northeastern Water Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Drob v. National Memorial Park, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1945
  2. Salgo v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
  3. Hauth v. Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953
  4. Hauth v. Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953
  5. Gim v. Jan Chin, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1976

3 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