Legal Opinion

Shirvanian v. DeFrates

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided March 31, 2005No. 14-02-00447-CVPublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON REHEARING

WANDA McKEE FOWLER, Justice.

We originally issued an opinion on January 8, 2004 in favor of the appellants, the Shirvanians, holding that the suit they brought against the appellees was a direct action — not a derivative suit — and therefore not barred by an earlier derivative suit against appellees. That decision applied Delaware law. However, while the appeal was on motion for rehearing, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying when a suit is derivative in that state. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1081 (Del.2004). Based on the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Science Spectrum, Inc. v. MartinezTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. AuldTexas Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. DoeTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Grant Thornton LLP v. Prospect High Income FundTexas Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Seureau v. ExxonMobil Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
  3. In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & Erisa Lit.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011
  4. Trousdale v. Henry, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
  5. Goss v. Houston Community Newspapers, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008

30 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