Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shoen v. Shoengreen2 sentences2018The Association also argues that "Zwicky's requests for documents are barred by the business judgment rule." That doctrine "precludes judicial inquiry into actions taken by a director in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the legitimate and lawful furtherance of a corporate purpose." Shoen v. Shoen , 167 Ariz. 58 , 65, 804 P.2d 787 , 794 (App. 1990). 2018The Association also argues that "Zwicky's requests for documents are barred by the business judgment rule." That doctrine "precludes judicial inquiry into actions taken by a director in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the legitimate and lawful furtherance of a corporate purpose." Shoen v. Shoen , 167 Ariz. 58 , 65, 804 P.2d 787 , 794 (App. 1990). | 3 | 5 |
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugggreen2 sentences2018See United Dairymen of Ariz. v. Schugg, 212 Ariz. 133, 140, ¶ 31 (App. 2006) (citation omitted). 2007See United Dairymen of Ariz. v. Schugg, 212 Ariz. 133 , 128 P.3d 756 (App.2006); Albers v. Edelson Tech. | 2 | 2 |
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcainogreen2 sentences2007See McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcai-no, 190 Ariz. 1, 5 , 945 P.2d 312, 316 (1997) (parties may not raise argument for first time on appeal). ¶ 68 Although Turner and Withycombe also assign error to the superior court’s instruction on the business judgment rule, they provide no argument in support of this alleged error. 2007See McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcai-no, 190 Ariz. 1, 5 , 945 P.2d 312, 316 (1997) (parties may not raise argument for first time on appeal). ¶ 68 Although Turner and Withycombe also assign error to the superior court’s instruction on the business judgment rule, they provide no argument in support of this alleged error. | 2 | 2 |
Kadish v. PHX.-SCOTTS. SPORTS COMPANYgreen1 sentence2018Our review of the record shows Singh first raised this argument in 14 Black’s Law Dictionary defines good faith as “[a] state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.” Black’s Law Dictionary 713 (8th ed. 2004). 15 See also Kadish, 11 Ariz. App. at 578 (stating “[w]here the acts of an officer or director smack of self-dealing . . . the officer or director has the burde | 1 | 1 |
cluster 750153green1 sentence2018Our review of the record shows Singh first raised this argument in 14 Black’s Law Dictionary defines good faith as “[a] state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.” Black’s Law Dictionary 713 (8th ed. 2004). 15 See also Kadish, 11 Ariz. App. at 578 (stating “[w]here the acts of an officer or director smack of self-dealing . . . the officer or director has the burde | 1 | 1 |
Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp.green2 sentences2007Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 , 554 N.Y.S.2d 807 , 553 N.E.2d 1317, 1320-21 (1990) (noting that when “[authority to approve or disapprove structural alterations ... is ... given to the governing board,” the appropriate standard by which to review its decisions is “analogous to the business judgment rule applied by courts to determine challenges to decisions made by corporate directors”). 2 ¶22 The business judgment approach is not the only approach taken by courts. 2007Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 , 554 N.Y.S.2d 807 , 553 N.E.2d 1317, 1320-21 (1990) (noting that when “[authority to approve or disapprove structural alterations ... is ... given to the governing board,” the appropriate standard by which to review its decisions is “analogous to the business judgment rule applied by courts to determine challenges to decisions made by corporate directors”). 2 ¶22 The business judgment approach is not the only approach taken by courts. | 1 | 1 |
Blumenthal v. Teetsgreen2 sentences2006The business judgment rule presumes 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 interest of the company.” Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 128 , 745 P.2d 181, 186 (App.1987). ¶ 32 This rule applies equally to cooperatives. 2006The business judgment rule presumes 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 interest of the company.” Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 128 , 745 P.2d 181, 186 (App.1987). ¶ 32 This rule applies equally to cooperatives. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 386005
green
2 sentences1990An earlier Second Circuit decision, Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corp., 638 F.2d 357 (2d Cir.1980), upon which the court in Norlin relied, contained the observation: The cases in this area demonstrate that the courts are sensitive to the risks of self-dealing and abuse which inhere in corporate stock transactions that are intended to affect control. 1990Id. at 382 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Aronson v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1987(Emphasis added.) Id. 1987Id., 473 A.2d at 808 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.