Legal Opinion
Cuker v. Mikalauskas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 21, 1997No. 115 E.D. Miscellaneous Docket 1996PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
PECO Energy Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking termination of minority shareholder derivative actions. When the motion was denied by the court of common pleas, PECO sought extraordinary relief in this court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3309. We granted the petition, limited to the issue of “whether the ‘business judgment rule’ permits the board of directors of a Pennsylvania corporation to terminate derivative lawsuits brought by minority shareholders.”
PECO is a publicly regulated utility incorporated in Pennsylvania which sells…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Briggs v. SpauldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- International Insurance Co., a Corporation v. Alfred M. Johns, James W. McFadden Thomas v. Ogletree, Richard W. Sherman, and G. Paul WhortonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Stone v. Schiller Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Cramer v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Hill v. OfaltSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Werbowsky v. CollombCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Schoon v. SmithSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
- Viener v. JacobsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Boland v. EngleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.