Legal Opinion

Aspinook Corp. v. Bright

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 30, 1947No. Docket No. 20825PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Bank Line, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  3. Craftsman Finance & Mortgage Co. v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
  4. Ward Baking Co. v. HoltzoffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  5. Boyd v. BellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
  2. Thompson v. BroadfootCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  3. Stella v. KaiserDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948
  4. Varanelli v. WoodDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API