6 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aronson v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2010Ch. 1995) (citing Aronson v. Lewis , 473 A.2d 805 , 812 (Del. 1984)) (stating that the business judgment rule can only be claimed by a disinterested director, not one who appears on both sides of a transaction, or who plans to derive personal financial benefit from a transaction); Aronson , 473 A.2d at 813 (stating that the business judgment rule does not apply when officers "have either abdicated their functions, or absent a conscious decision, failed to act"). 36 This duty is often compared to that of corporate directors. 2010Ch. 1995) (citing Aronson v. Lewis , 473 A.2d 805 , 812 (Del. 1984)) (stating that the business judgment rule can only be claimed by a disinterested director, not one who appears on both sides of a transaction, or who plans to derive personal financial benefit from a transaction); Aronson , 473 A.2d at 813 (stating that the business judgment rule does not apply when officers "have either abdicated their functions, or absent a conscious decision, failed to act"). 36 This duty is often compared to that of corporate directors. | 2 | 3 |
Bove v. Community Hotel Corp. of Newport, RIgreen2 sentences2010See e.g. , Bove v. Community Hotel Corp. of Newport, R.I. , 105 R.I. 36 , 41-42 , 249 A.2d 89 , 93 (R.I. 1969) (stating that in the area of corporate law, Delaware case law is a valuable tool for Rhode Island courts to utilize). 35 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the corporate general partner and directors of a general partner in a limited partnership "are entitled to the protections afforded corporate directors, including a presumption that their actions are protected from judicial oversight by the business judgment rule." Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P. , 836 A.2d 521 , 528 (Del. 2010See e.g. , Bove v. Community Hotel Corp. of Newport, R.I. , 105 R.I. 36 , 41-42 , 249 A.2d 89 , 93 (R.I. 1969) (stating that in the area of corporate law, Delaware case law is a valuable tool for Rhode Island courts to utilize). 35 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the corporate general partner and directors of a general partner in a limited partnership "are entitled to the protections afforded corporate directors, including a presumption that their actions are protected from judicial oversight by the business judgment rule." Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P. , 836 A.2d 521 , 528 (Del. | 2 | 2 |
Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P.green2 sentences2010Ch. 2003). `The business judgment rule generally protects the actions of general partners, affording them a presumption that they acted on an informed basis and in the honest belief that they acted in the best interests of the partnership and the limited partners.' Id. (quoting In re Boston Celtics Ltd. 2010See e.g. , Bove v. Community Hotel Corp. of Newport, R.I. , 105 R.I. 36 , 41-42 , 249 A.2d 89 , 93 (R.I. 1969) (stating that in the area of corporate law, Delaware case law is a valuable tool for Rhode Island courts to utilize). 35 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the corporate general partner and directors of a general partner in a limited partnership "are entitled to the protections afforded corporate directors, including a presumption that their actions are protected from judicial oversight by the business judgment rule." Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P. , 836 A.2d 521 , 528 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
NAACP ASS'N v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2007Id. at 558-62. 2007Id. at 560-61. | 1 | 1 |
Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc.green1 sentence2006See § 7-16-17 ; see also Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc., 818 A.2d 914 , 928 (Del. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Emerald Partners v. Berlin
green
2 sentences2004If the presumption of the business judgment rule is rebutted, however, the burden shifts to the director defendants to prove to the trier of fact that the challenged transaction was `entirely fair' to the shareholder plaintiff." Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 787 A.2d 85 , 90-91 (Del. 2001) (citations omitted). 2004If the presumption of the business judgment rule is rebutted, however, the burden shifts to the director defendants to prove to the trier of fact that the challenged transaction was `entirely fair' to the shareholder plaintiff." Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 787 A.2d 85 , 90-91 (Del. 2001) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Miller v. Schweickart
green
1 sentence2010Boxer , 429 A.2d at 997 (quoting Miller v. Schweickart , 405 F. Supp. 366 , 369 (S.D.N.Y 1975) (stating that the fiduciary duty of a general partner to a limited partner is no less than that of corporate directors, requiring good faith, loyalty, and care)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Boxer v. Husky Oil Co.
green
1 sentence2010Boxer , 429 A.2d at 997 (quoting Miller v. Schweickart , 405 F. Supp. 366 , 369 (S.D.N.Y 1975) (stating that the fiduciary duty of a general partner to a limited partner is no less than that of corporate directors, requiring good faith, loyalty, and care)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Tomaino v. Concord Oil of Newport, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Tomaino v. Concord Oil of Newport, Inc. , 709 A.2d 1016 , 1021 (R.I. 1998). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Churella v. Pioneer State Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2004In sum, we hold that policyholders have no right to compel distribution where there is no statute, company bylaw, or contract provision according them that right, and where they did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the business judgment rule." Id. 2004In sum, we hold that policyholders have no right to compel distribution where there is no statute, company bylaw, or contract provision according them that right, and where they did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the business judgment rule." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Grobow v. Perot
green
1 sentence2004Rather, "[t]he totality of the complaint's allegations need only support a reasonable doubt of business judgment protection, not a `judicial finding that the directors' actions are not protected by the business judgment rule." Id. at 809. (citing, Grobow v. Perot, 539 A.2d 180 , 186 (Del. 1988). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.