Aspinook Corp. v. Bright
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
Judge Bright’s refusal of the substantial costs bond provided for corporations in shareholders’ derivative actions by the state *295statute passed in 1944, N. Y. General Corporation Law, § 61-b, was based upon- the conclusion stated by him in Boyd v. Bell, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 64 F.Supp. 22, that the act was procedural in nature and could not restrict a substantive right to relief of federal cognizance through the diverse citizenship of the parties. Other district judges have similarly ruled. Craftsmen Finance & Mortg. Co. v. Brown, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 64 F. Supp. 168 (Leibell, J.); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Bank Line, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Craftsman Finance & Mortgage Co. v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Ward Baking Co. v. HoltzoffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Boyd v. BellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Thompson v. BroadfootCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Stella v. KaiserDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- Varanelli v. WoodDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1949