5 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cox and Perry, Inc. v. Perrygreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Cox & Perry, Inc. v. Perry , 334 So.2d 867 , 869 (Ala. 1976) (concluding that directors' new business did not violate the doctrine of corporate opportunity because it did not thwart the purpose of the plaintiff corporation); Lagarde , 126 Ala. at 502 , 28 So. at 201 (noting that the duty of loyalty is "generally limited ... to cases where the officers' interference will in some degree balk the corporation in effecting the purposes of its creation"). 2018See, e.g., Cox & Perry, Inc. v. Perry , 334 So.2d 867 , 869 (Ala. 1976) (concluding that directors' new business did not violate the doctrine of corporate opportunity because it did not thwart the purpose of the plaintiff corporation); Lagarde , 126 Ala. at 502 , 28 So. at 201 (noting that the duty of loyalty is "generally limited ... to cases where the officers' interference will in some degree balk the corporation in effecting the purposes of its creation"). | 2 | 3 |
Guth v. Loft, Inc.green2 sentences1992The Delaware courts have stated that the determination of whether the duty of loyalty was breached when the opportunity was taken depends upon "the circumstances existing at the time [the opportunity] presented itself to [the fiduciary] without regard to subsequent events," and those courts have said "that due weight should be given to [the] character of the opportunity which [the offeror] envisioned and brought to [the fiduciary's] door." Guth v. Loft, Inc, 23 Del.Ch. 255, 277 , 5 A.2d 503, 513 (1939). 1992The Delaware courts have stated that the determination of whether the duty of loyalty was breached when the opportunity was taken depends upon "the circumstances existing at the time [the opportunity] presented itself to [the fiduciary] without regard to subsequent events," and those courts have said "that due weight should be given to [the] character of the opportunity which [the offeror] envisioned and brought to [the fiduciary's] door." Guth v. Loft, Inc , 23 Del. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lagarde v. Anniston Lime & Stone Co.
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g., Cox & Perry, Inc. v. Perry , 334 So.2d 867 , 869 (Ala. 1976) (concluding that directors' new business did not violate the doctrine of corporate opportunity because it did not thwart the purpose of the plaintiff corporation); Lagarde , 126 Ala. at 502 , 28 So. at 201 (noting that the duty of loyalty is "generally limited ... to cases where the officers' interference will in some degree balk the corporation in effecting the purposes of its creation"). 2018See, e.g., Cox & Perry, Inc. v. Perry , 334 So.2d 867 , 869 (Ala. 1976) (concluding that directors' new business did not violate the doctrine of corporate opportunity because it did not thwart the purpose of the plaintiff corporation); Lagarde , 126 Ala. at 502 , 28 So. at 201 (noting that the duty of loyalty is "generally limited ... to cases where the officers' interference will in some degree balk the corporation in effecting the purposes of its creation"). | 3 | 1978–2018 |
McKinstry v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2018While he was the president, general manager, and a director of Jefferson Lumber Company, McKinstry "conducted a competitive business of such nature as to cripple or injure the business of Jefferson Lumber Company, and ... when such a situation exists equity will impress a trust for the benefit of the corporation on the profits arising from it and on such competitive business itself to secure those profits." 258 Ala. at 698 , 64 So.2d at 813 . 2018While he was the president, general manager, and a director of Jefferson Lumber Company, McKinstry "conducted a competitive business of such nature as to cripple or injure the business of Jefferson Lumber Company, and ... when such a situation exists equity will impress a trust for the benefit of the corporation on the profits arising from it and on such competitive business itself to secure those profits." 258 Ala. at 698 , 64 So.2d at 813 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Davis v. Dorsey
green
2 sentences2018"The corporate-opportunity doctrine is invoked *265 when a director or officer appropriates for personal benefit a business opportunity that belongs to or should have been offered to the corporation." Davis v. Dorsey , 495 F.Supp.2d 1162 , 1170 (M.D. 2018"The corporate-opportunity doctrine is invoked *265 when a director or officer appropriates for personal benefit a business opportunity that belongs to or should have been offered to the corporation." Davis v. Dorsey , 495 F.Supp.2d 1162 , 1170 (M.D. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Bauman v. Hayes
green
1 sentence1986Another Alabama case dealing with the doctrine of corporate opportunity is Bauman v. Hayes, 379 So.2d 1251 (Ala.1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Morad v. Coupounas
green
1 sentence1986The leading case in Alabama dealing with the corporate opportunity doctrine is Morad v. Coupounas, 361 So.2d 6 (Ala. 1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.