stockholders bar in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen tex · 1942 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1965–2015 2 sentences 1968The law is well established by the Supreme Court of Texas that a stockholder cannot maintain an action for the corporation : “Such action must be brought by the corporation, not alone to avoid a multiplicity of suits by the various stockholders and to bar a subsequent suit by the corporation, but in order that the damages so recovered may be available for the payment of the corporation’s creditors, and for proportional distribution to the stockholders as dividends, or for such other purposes as the directors may lawfully determine.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S. 1968The law is well established by the Supreme Court of Texas that a stockholder cannot maintain an action for the corporation : “Such action must be brought by the corporation, not alone to avoid a multiplicity of suits by the various stockholders and to bar a subsequent suit by the corporation, but in order that the damages so recovered may be available for the payment of the corporation’s creditors, and for proportional distribution to the stockholders as dividends, or for such other purposes as the directors may lawfully determine.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.	2	4
Wingate v. Hajdikgreen tex · 1990 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–2015 2 sentences 2015Wingate, 795 S.W.2d at 719 (quoting Mass. v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398, 407 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S. Ct. 1447 (1943)). 1998This rule does not, of course, prohibit a stockholder from recovering damages for wrongs done to him individually "where the wrongdoer violates a duty arising from contract or otherwise, and owing directly by him to the stockholder." However, to recover individually, a stockholder must prove a personal cause of action and personal injury. 795 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Tex.1990) (citations omitted).	1	2
Schoellkopf v. Pledgergreen texapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied). 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied).	1	1
Cullum v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.green texapp · 1938 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 1 sentence 1968See also Cullum v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 115 S.W.2d 1196, 1200 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1938, no writ hist.); Dittman v. Myers, 95 S.W.2d 1332 (Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 1936, writ dism.).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Estate of Rogers v. Helvering green scotus · 1943 2 sentences 2015Wingate, 795 S.W.2d at 719 (quoting Mass. v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398, 407 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S. Ct. 1447 (1943)). 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied).	2	1990–2015
First National Benefit Society v. Stuart green scotus · 1943 2 sentences 2015Wingate, 795 S.W.2d at 719 (quoting Mass. v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398, 407 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S. Ct. 1447 (1943)). 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied).	2	1990–2015
Schoellkopf v. Pledger green texapp · 1989 2 sentences 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied). 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied).	1	1990–1990
Pledger v. Schoellkopf green tex · 1988 2 sentences 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied). 1990Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 221 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943); Schoellkopf v. Pledger, 739 S.W.2d 914, 918-920 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 762 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam), opinion on remand, 778 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied).	1	1990–1990
First State Bank of Euless v. Bolinger green texapp · 1968 1 sentence 1972The employment agency bought with the assets of Robsan, Inc., in all probability, belonged to Robsan, Inc. First State Bank of Euless v. Bolinger, 431 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App.1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.).	1	1972–1972
Weber v. Lane green mich · 1946 2 sentences 1970“It did not and could not have the effect of rendering the stock inalienable or of rendering a sale of it, without the prior notice of the intention to sell, absolutely null.” In Weber v. Lane, 315 Mich. 678 , 24 N.W.2d 418 (1946), a shareholder sought to enforce a by-law which restricted the sale of a corporation’s stock to the corporation or existing shareholders. 1970“It did not and could not have the effect of rendering the stock inalienable or of rendering a sale of it, without the prior notice of the intention to sell, absolutely null.” In Weber v. Lane, 315 Mich. 678 , 24 N.W.2d 418 (1946), a shareholder sought to enforce a by-law which restricted the sale of a corporation’s stock to the corporation or existing shareholders.	1	1970–1970
State ex rel. Scott v. Caddo Rock Drill Bit Co. green la · 1917 2 sentences 1970In State v. Caddo Rock Drill Bit Co., 141 La. 353 , 75 So. 78 (1917), the court held that the only effect of a first option restriction (which made no reference to the corporation’s right to not recognize the sale, etc.) was to preserve to the other stockholders the privilege of purchasing the stock at any time during the stated option period. 1970In State v. Caddo Rock Drill Bit Co., 141 La. 353 , 75 So. 78 (1917), the court held that the only effect of a first option restriction (which made no reference to the corporation’s right to not recognize the sale, etc.) was to preserve to the other stockholders the privilege of purchasing the stock at any time during the stated option period.	1	1970–1970
Stinnett v. Paramount-Famous Lasky Corp. of New York green texcommnapp · 1931 1 sentence 1970Such action must be brought by the corporation, not alone to avoid a multiplicity of suits by the various stockholders and to bar a subsequent suit by the corporation, but in order that the damages so recovered may be available for the payment of the corporation’s creditors, and for proportional distribution to the stockholders as dividends, or for such other purposes as the directors may lawfully determine.” However, the trial court was entitled to find from the evidence that Carr and Guthrie were in virtually complete control of Texas Concrete, TCC Equipment and Sirad throughout the period o	1	1970–1970
Dittman v. Myers green texapp · 1936 1 sentence 1968See also Cullum v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 115 S.W.2d 1196, 1200 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1938, no writ hist.); Dittman v. Myers, 95 S.W.2d 1332 (Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 1936, writ dism.).	1	1968–1968
Goldberg v. Berry green nyappdiv · 1930 2 sentences 1965Whitten v. Dabney, 171 Cal. 621 , 154 P. 312 ; Goldberg v. Berry, 231 App.Div. 165 , 247 N.Y.S. 69 . 1965Whitten v. Dabney, 171 Cal. 621 , 154 P. 312 ; Goldberg v. Berry, 231 App.Div. 165 , 247 N.Y.S. 69 .	1	1965–1965
Whitten v. Dabney green cal · 1915 2 sentences 1965Whitten v. Dabney, 171 Cal. 621 , 154 P. 312 ; Goldberg v. Berry, 231 App.Div. 165 , 247 N.Y.S. 69 . 1965Whitten v. Dabney, 171 Cal. 621 , 154 P. 312 ; Goldberg v. Berry, 231 App.Div. 165 , 247 N.Y.S. 69 .	1	1965–1965
Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. Stinnett neutral texapp · 1929 1 sentence 1942App.), 17 S. W. (2d) 125, (Com.	1	1942–1942
Evans v. Brandon green tex · 1880 1 sentence 1942Such action must be brought by the corporation, not alone to avoid a multiplicity of suits by the various stockholders and to bar a subsequent suit by the corporation, but in order that the damages so recovered may be available for the payment of the corporation’s "creditors, and for proportional distribution to the stockholders as dividends, or for such other purposes as the directors may lawfully determine. 3 Hildebrand Texas Corporations, Sec. 763, pp. 148-164; Evans v. Brannon,. 53 Texas 56 ; Paramount-Famous Lasky Corp. v. Stinnett (Tex. Civ.	1	1942–1942

Where else courts name it

TX 9 (1942–2015) DE 3 (1965–1980)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check