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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mann v. Kemper Financial Companies, Inc.green2 sentences2019App. 3d at 733 , 191 Ill.Dec. 317 , 623 N.E.2d 907 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. , 493 U.S. 331 , 336, 110 S.Ct. 661 , 107 L.Ed.2d 696 (1990) ); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc. , 546 A.2d 348 , 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder's derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos. , 247 Ill. 2019App. 3d at 733 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 493 U.S. 331 , 336 (1990)); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc., 546 A.2d 348, 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder’s derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos., 247 Ill. | 3 | 4 |
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.green2 sentences2019App. 3d at 733 , 191 Ill.Dec. 317 , 623 N.E.2d 907 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. , 493 U.S. 331 , 336, 110 S.Ct. 661 , 107 L.Ed.2d 696 (1990) ); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc. , 546 A.2d 348 , 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder's derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos. , 247 Ill. 2019App. 3d at 733 , 191 Ill.Dec. 317 , 623 N.E.2d 907 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. , 493 U.S. 331 , 336, 110 S.Ct. 661 , 107 L.Ed.2d 696 (1990) ); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc. , 546 A.2d 348 , 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder's derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos. , 247 Ill. | 1 | 4 |
Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2019App. 3d at 733 , 191 Ill.Dec. 317 , 623 N.E.2d 907 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. , 493 U.S. 331 , 336, 110 S.Ct. 661 , 107 L.Ed.2d 696 (1990) ); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc. , 546 A.2d 348 , 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder's derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos. , 247 Ill. 2019App. 3d at 733 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 493 U.S. 331 , 336 (1990)); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc., 546 A.2d 348, 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder’s derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos., 247 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cashman v. Coopers and Lybrand
green
2 sentences2019App. 3d at 733 , 191 Ill.Dec. 317 , 623 N.E.2d 907 (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. , 493 U.S. 331 , 336, 110 S.Ct. 661 , 107 L.Ed.2d 696 (1990) ); Kramer v. Western Pacific Industries, Inc. , 546 A.2d 348 , 351 (Del. 1988) (indicating an exception to the shareholder standing rule is a shareholder's derivative suit in which the shareholder is permitted to sue on behalf of the corporation for harm done to the corporation, and if successful, obtain a damage award for the corporation); Mann v. Kemper Financial Cos. , 247 Ill. 2019Under the laws of both jurisdictions, when a wrong is done to a company, generally, the company's management, not its shareholders, has the autonomous right to recover the company's losses, and both jurisdictions would bar a shareholder from suing for his or her indirect, proportionate share of the company's losses. ¶ 20 More specifically, the shareholder standing rule followed in the United States " 'is a longstanding equitable restriction that generally prohibits shareholders from initiating actions to enforce the rights of the corporation unless the corporation's management has refused to p | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Zokoych v. Spalding
green
1 sentence1993Ed. 2d 696 , 704, 110 S. Ct. 661, 665 .) The plaintiffs cite Zokoych v. Spalding (1976), 36 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.