Legal Opinion
Harris v. Carter
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided May 4, 1990No. Civ. A. 8768PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ALLEN, Chancellor.
Two distinct groups of defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended and Supplemental Complaint in this action, (“amended complaint”). They assert (1) that the action was not properly instituted as the derivative action it purports to be (2) that the amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and (3) with respect to certain defendants, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.
Certain of the legal issues presented are novel questions under our law and they arise in a case of some factual and procedural complexity.
For the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,860 Athalie Doris Joy v. Nelson L. North, Nelson L. NorthCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Smith v. Van GorkomSupreme Court of Delaware · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- Grimes v. DonaldSupreme Court of Delaware · 1996
- McCall v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Alfred Blasband v. Steven M. Rales Mitchell P. Rales John Doe 1-10 Danaher Corporation, Alfred Blasband, Derivatively on Behalf of Danaher CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Braddock v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.