11 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1913–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Spiegel v. Buntrockgreen2 sentences2025May 8, 2015), aff'd , 132 A.3d 748 (Del. 2016). ¶19 To satisfy the demand requirement in Oklahoma, the petition must "allege with particularity" what the plaintiff did to notify the corporation of the dispute and the efforts undertaken to resolve the matter before filing a derivative action. 12 O.S.2021 § 2023.1 Spiegel v. Buntrock , 571 A.2d at 773 . ¶20 The April 17, 2019 letter lists eight actions the original plaintiffs requested the Board to take: 1) "retrieve" the $25 per month dues increase approved by the members and paid to Grand Bluffs or the Golf Club, because that is not permitted 2025Spiegel v. Buntrock , 571 A.2d 767, 773 (Del. 1990). "[B]y promoting this form of alternate dispute resolution, rather than immediate recourse to litigation, the demand requirement is a recognition of the fundamental precept that directors manage the business and affairs of corporations." Aronson v. Lewis , 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984) (overruled on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner , 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000)). | 2 | 2 |
Evangelist v. Fidelity Management & Research Co.green2 sentences2015Mgmt. & Research Co., 554 F.Supp. 87, 90 (D.Mass.1982) (citation omitted). 2015Mgmt. & Research Co. , 554 F. Supp. 87, 90 (D. | 2 | 2 |
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.green2 sentences2015Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 101 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 LEd.2d 152 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 118 In addition, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has noted that § 2028.1 "is identical" to Rule 28.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2015Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 101 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 LEd.2d 152 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 118 In addition, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has noted that § 2028.1 "is identical" to Rule 28.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 2 |
Aronson v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2025Spiegel v. Buntrock , 571 A.2d 767, 773 (Del. 1990). "[B]y promoting this form of alternate dispute resolution, rather than immediate recourse to litigation, the demand requirement is a recognition of the fundamental precept that directors manage the business and affairs of corporations." Aronson v. Lewis , 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984) (overruled on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner , 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Ana Josefina Gonzalez Turul v. Rogatol Distributors, Inc., Belisario Araujo and Guillermo Araujogreen1 sentence2025"A shareholder derivative action is an action of last resort." Id . at 18 (quoting Gonzalez Turul v. Rogatol Distrib., Inc ., 951 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Laufer v. Olla Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2015See also Laufer v. Olla Indus., Inc. , 96 F.R.D. 230, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) aff'd , 729 F.2d 1444 (2d Cir. 1983) ("A salutary purpose of the demand requirement is to protect corporate directors from harassment by litigious dissidents."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Megahey (Gabriel)green1 sentence2015See also Laufer v. Olla Indus., Inc. , 96 F.R.D. 230, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) aff'd , 729 F.2d 1444 (2d Cir. 1983) ("A salutary purpose of the demand requirement is to protect corporate directors from harassment by litigious dissidents."). | 1 | 1 |
Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.green2 sentences2012See Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 775 (Del.1990); In re Citigroup, Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 124 (Del.2009). 121 The Delaware Supreme Court, considering the purpose of the demand requirement, held that "f the demand rule requires deference to the prerogative of management, its invocation must advance management's position, vis-a-vis, the claims in question, otherwise, the rule serves no funetion." Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 540 A.2d 726, 781 (Del.1988). 10 Considering that the purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's mana 2012See Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 775 (Del.1990); In re Citigroup, Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 124 (Del.2009). 121 The Delaware Supreme Court, considering the purpose of the demand requirement, held that "f the demand rule requires deference to the prerogative of management, its invocation must advance management's position, vis-a-vis, the claims in question, otherwise, the rule serves no funetion." Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 540 A.2d 726, 781 (Del.1988). 10 Considering that the purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's mana | 1 | 1 |
In Re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigationgreen2 sentences2012See Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 775 (Del.1990); In re Citigroup, Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 124 (Del.2009). 121 The Delaware Supreme Court, considering the purpose of the demand requirement, held that "f the demand rule requires deference to the prerogative of management, its invocation must advance management's position, vis-a-vis, the claims in question, otherwise, the rule serves no funetion." Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 540 A.2d 726, 781 (Del.1988). 10 Considering that the purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's mana 2012See Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 775 (Del.1990); In re Citigroup, Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 124 (Del.2009). 121 The Delaware Supreme Court, considering the purpose of the demand requirement, held that "f the demand rule requires deference to the prerogative of management, its invocation must advance management's position, vis-a-vis, the claims in question, otherwise, the rule serves no funetion." Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 540 A.2d 726, 781 (Del.1988). 10 Considering that the purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's mana | 1 | 1 |
Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.green1 sentence2012Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 529 A.2d 254, 259 (Del.Ch.1987) (reversed in part on other grounds); In re American Int'l Group, Inc., 965 A.2d at 810-11 . | 1 | 1 |
Golden v. Goldengreen2 sentences1967In Golden v. Golden, 155 Okl. 10 , 8 P.2d 42, 45, 46 , it is stated: "The word `demand' is defined in Words & Phrases, First Series, vol. 2, at page 1974, as follows: `According to Lord Coke the word "demand" is the largest word in the law, except "claim," and a release of demands discharges all sorts of rights and titles, conditions, before or after breach, executions, appeals, rents of all kinds, covenants, annuities, contracts, recognizances, statutes, commons, etc. Vedder v. Vedder (N.Y.) 1 Denio, 257, 261 . `A demand is a claim; a legal obligation. 1967In Golden v. Golden, 155 Okl. 10 , 8 P.2d 42, 45, 46 , it is stated: "The word `demand' is defined in Words & Phrases, First Series, vol. 2, at page 1974, as follows: `According to Lord Coke the word "demand" is the largest word in the law, except "claim," and a release of demands discharges all sorts of rights and titles, conditions, before or after breach, executions, appeals, rents of all kinds, covenants, annuities, contracts, recognizances, statutes, commons, etc. Vedder v. Vedder (N.Y.) 1 Denio, 257, 261 . `A demand is a claim; a legal obligation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kurtz v. Clark
green
2 sentences2013"The demand requirement exists to protect the decision making authority of the corporate board, and the board's right to manage the affairs of the corporation, which includes the authority to make decisions on whether to initiate litigation." Kurtz , 2012 OK CIV APP 103, ¶20 , 290 P.3d at 787 . 2013"The demand requirement exists to protect the decision making authority of the corporate board, and the board's right to manage the affairs of the corporation, which includes the authority to make decisions on whether to initiate litigation." Kurtz , 2012 OK CIV APP 103, ¶20 , 290 P.3d at 787 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Beard v. Love
green
2 sentences2013(Citations omitted.) "When applying the business judgment rule, courts presume that 'in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.'" Beard v. Love , 2007 OK CIV APP 118, ¶29 , 173 P.3d 796, 804 . 2013(Citations omitted.) "When applying the business judgment rule, courts presume that 'in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.'" Beard v. Love , 2007 OK CIV APP 118, ¶29 , 173 P.3d 796, 804 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Haddan v. The Coves Master Association, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2026Haddan et al. v. The Coves Master Association, Inc. et al .: [T]he purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's management decisions are respected, [and] a critical inquiry in any shareholder's derivative suit is whether the board, upon receiving a shareholder's demand, conducted an investigation in good faith and made a determination that initiating litigation was not in the corporation's best interest. 2025 OK CIV APP 12 570 P.3d 602 Ironworkers Dist. 2026Haddan et al. v. The Coves Master Association, Inc. et al .: [T]he purpose of the demand requirement is to ensure that the corporate board's management decisions are respected, [and] a critical inquiry in any shareholder's derivative suit is whether the board, upon receiving a shareholder's demand, conducted an investigation in good faith and made a determination that initiating litigation was not in the corporation's best interest. 2025 OK CIV APP 12 570 P.3d 602 Ironworkers Dist. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brehm v. Eisner
green
1 sentence2025Spiegel v. Buntrock , 571 A.2d 767, 773 (Del. 1990). "[B]y promoting this form of alternate dispute resolution, rather than immediate recourse to litigation, the demand requirement is a recognition of the fundamental precept that directors manage the business and affairs of corporations." Aronson v. Lewis , 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984) (overruled on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner , 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ironworkers District Council v. Andreotti
neutral
1 sentence2025May 8, 2015), aff'd , 132 A.3d 748 (Del. 2016). ¶19 To satisfy the demand requirement in Oklahoma, the petition must "allege with particularity" what the plaintiff did to notify the corporation of the dispute and the efforts undertaken to resolve the matter before filing a derivative action. 12 O.S.2021 § 2023.1 Spiegel v. Buntrock , 571 A.2d at 773 . ¶20 The April 17, 2019 letter lists eight actions the original plaintiffs requested the Board to take: 1) "retrieve" the $25 per month dues increase approved by the members and paid to Grand Bluffs or the Golf Club, because that is not permitted | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brummitt v. Higgins, Judge
green
1 sentence1975Cr. 183, 157 P.2d 922 (1945), as follows: “[I]f the defendant is not on bail, the law makes the demand [for trial] for him and the prosecution has the burden of showing that the trial was delayed for some lawful cause.” The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, supra, rejected the demand-waiver doctrine as an unsatisfactory approach to the application of the right to speedy trial, and held that the defendant’s assertion of his right is a distinct factor to be considered, with pre-trial incarceration being considered in connection with preju *441 dice to the defendant. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Vedder v. Vedder
neutral
2 sentences1967In Golden v. Golden, 155 Okl. 10 , 8 P.2d 42, 45, 46 , it is stated: “The word ‘demand’ is defined in Words & Phrases, First Series, vol. 2, at page 1974, as follows: ‘According to Lord Coke the word “demand” is the largest word in the law, except “claim,” and a release of demands discharges all sorts of rights and titles, conditions, before or after breach, executions, appeals, rents of all kinds, covenants, annuities, contracts, recognizances, statutes, commons, etc. Vedder v. Vedder (N.Y.) 1 Denio, 257,261 . ‘A demand is a claim; a legal obligation. 1967In Golden v. Golden, 155 Okl. 10 , 8 P.2d 42, 45, 46 , it is stated: "The word `demand' is defined in Words & Phrases, First Series, vol. 2, at page 1974, as follows: `According to Lord Coke the word "demand" is the largest word in the law, except "claim," and a release of demands discharges all sorts of rights and titles, conditions, before or after breach, executions, appeals, rents of all kinds, covenants, annuities, contracts, recognizances, statutes, commons, etc. Vedder v. Vedder (N.Y.) 1 Denio, 257, 261 . `A demand is a claim; a legal obligation. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State ex rel. Garland County v. Baxter
neutral
1 sentence1932State v. Baxter, 38 Ark. 462, 467 .” Under the authorities just cited, the word “claim” is a more comprehensive word than “demand.” Lord Coke says that the word “demand” is the largest word in the law except “claim.” A release of all demands is in general a release of all covenants, real or personal, whether broken or not, annuities, obligations, contracts, and the like. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Fayerweather v. Ritch
green
1 sentence1913Such demand or claim, having passed into judgment, cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties in proceedings at law upon any ground what- ' ever.” *495 Fayerweather v. Ritch, 196 U. S. 275 , 25 Sup. Ct. 58, 49 L. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.