green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case ·
“Certainly, there is no presumption that a director is controlled. Rather, the issue is an intensely factual one.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“... mere conclusory allegations of director wrongdoing will not suffice to excuse demand.”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Lake v. First Nationwide Bank
But see Welch v. Board of Directors of Wildwood Golf Club, 146 F.R.D. 131, 136 (W.D.Pa.1993) ("The burden is on the defendants to prove that the representation will be inadequate.”) (citing Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
MOZES ON BEHALF OF GENERAL ELEC. CO. v. Welch
... mere conclusory allegations of director wrongdoing will not suffice to excuse demand.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kaster v. Modification Systems, Inc.
certainly, there is no presumption that a director is controlled. rather, the issue is an intensely factual one.
cited
Cited "see"
Daventree Ltd. v. Republic of Azerbaijan
See Johns v. Rozet, 141 F.R.D. 211, 217 (D.D.C.1992) (citing Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fields v. Biomatrix, Inc.
Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 508 F.2d 239, 247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011 , 95 S.Ct. 2415 (1975); see Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walco Investments, Inc. v. Thenen
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 789 (3rd Cir.1982) (class representatives are not required to have a detailed knowledge of the litigation), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re ML-Lee Acquisition Fund II, L.P. & ML-Lee Acquisition Fund (Retirement Accounts) II, L.P. Securities Litigation
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 789 (3d Cir.) (class representative adequate even where he “displayed a complete ignorance of the facts concerning the transaction that he was challenging), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); In re Data Access, 103 F.R.D. 130, 141 (D.N.J.1984); Peil v. Speiser, 97 F.R.D. 657, 660 (E.D.Pa.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joy Manufacturing Corp. v. Pullman-Peabody Co.
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982), where the court stated that in “determining whether a demand is necessary, [the court] should consider whether a demand on the directors would be likely to prod them to correct a wrong.” Berger’s suit sought to have the stock rights and pension plans, the poison pills, declared invalid as the products of a breach of fiduciary duty by the Joy board of directors.
cited
Cited "see"
Granada Investments, Inc. v. DWG Corp.
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3rd Cir.) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); see also Baron v. Strawbridge & Clothier, 646 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.Pa.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(2×)
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 783 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Heyl & Patterson Int’l, Inc. v. F.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Shelton v. Thompson
If, as alleged, this deflated value was the product of illegal or fraudulent conduct on the part of Lexington's directors, then Colonial would presumably deem it desirable and appropriate to seek redress for a loss occasioned by persons who, at the time of the loss, were outside the Colonial corporate structure. [2] If that presumption is correct, and I believe that it is, then for the plaintiffs to give notice to Colonial's directors before bringing a derivative action would not be futileit would be imperative, given that "the demand requirement of Rule 23.1 should be rigorously enforced." …
discussed
Cited "see"
Samuel M. Feinberg Testamentary Trust v. Carter
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Consumers Power Co. Derivative Litigation
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Tabas v. Mullane, 608 F.Supp. 759, 767 (D.N.J. 1985); Reilly Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Savings & Loan Ass’n, 568 F.Supp. 1067 (E.D.Va.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
National Labor Relations Board v. Cer Inc.
See Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 658 F.2d 968 , 984 n. 18 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 879 , 103 S.Ct. 175 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Century Air Freight, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
See Moore Drug Exchange v. Eli Lilly & Co., 662 F.2d 935, 941 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Clark Enterprises, Inc. v. Holywell Corp.
See Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3rd Cir.1982), cert. denied — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 ; In re Kauffman Mutual Fund' Action, supra at 263 n. 4.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
COR Marketing & Sales, Inc. v. Greyhawk Corp.
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfred Blasband v. Steven M. Rales Mitchell P. Rales John Doe 1-10 Danaher Corporation, Alfred Blasband, Derivatively on Behalf of Danaher Corporation
See also Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 783 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Larson v. Dumke
See e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788-89 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Owen v. Modern Diversified Industries, Inc., 643 F.2d 441, 443-44 (6th Cir.1981) (no antagonistic interests); GA Enterprises, Inc. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 123, 125-27 (D.Mass.1974), aff'd, 517 F.2d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Larson v. Dumke
See e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788-89 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Owen v. Modern Diversified Industries, Inc., 643 F.2d 441, 443-44 (6th Cir.1981) (no antagonistic interests); GA Enterprises, Inc. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 123, 125-27 (D.Mass.1974), aff'd, 517 F.2d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alcan Aluminium Limited v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California, Imperial Chemical Industries Plc v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Brink v. Dalesio, 667 F.2d 420, 428 (4th Cir.1981); Note, Trust Beneficiary Standing in Shareholder Derivative Actions, 39 Stan.L.Rev. 267, 273-74 (1986). 14 In a number of more recent cases, federal courts have denied individual standing to shareholders notwithstanding that these shareholders controlled a majority of voting shares and that subject matter jurisdiction did not depend on the individual plaintiff's residence.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Longden v. Sunderman
See Wolgin v. Magic Marker Corp., 82 F.R.D. 168, 175 (E.D.Pa.1979); see also Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Weinberger v. Jackson, 102 F.R.D. 839, 845 (N.D.Cal.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Brink v. Dalesio, 667 F.2d 420, 428 (4th Cir.1981); Note, Trust Beneficiary Standing in Shareholder Derivative Actions, 39 Stan.L.Rev. 267, 273-74 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc.
See e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Billeter
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 784-87 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Billeter
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 784-87 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982). 25 Defendants also assert that pursuant to Rule 23.1 Allright should have requested prior to filing this action or the Second Amended Complaint that the other limited partners, who by majority vote approved the conveyance, join in its efforts to rescind the sale.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. Hilton
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 786 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Allison, 604 F.Supp. at 1122 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaufman ex rel. Bankamerica Corp. v. Armacost
Compare Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 785 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982) (applying state law) with Greenspun v. Del E.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Bankamerica Securities Litigation
Compare Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 785 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982) (applying state law) with Greenspun v. Del E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Herbert Baylin
(2×)
See, e.g., Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 302 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 999 , 101 S.Ct. 1704 , 68 L.Ed.2d 200 (1981); Poteet v. Fauver, 517 F.2d 393 (3d Cir.1975) 31 The Ninth Circuit adopted the Robin test in United States v. Arnett, 628 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.1979), and reaffirmed its adherence to the test in United States v. Larios, 640 F.2d 938, 943 (9th Cir.1981), and United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 929 (9th Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Best
v.
United Virginia Bank/National
v.
United Virginia Bank/National
No. 81-2279.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.