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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Dicksongreen2 sentences2020See also Thomas, 250 Ga. at 774 . [T]he reasons for requiring derivative suits in the ordinary corporate context are (1) to prevent multiple suits by shareholders; (2) to protect corporate creditors by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation; (3) to protect the interest of all the shareholders by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation, rather than allowing recovery by one or a few shareholders to the prejudice of others; and (4) to adequately compensate injured shareholders by increasing their share values. 2010See Thomas, 250 Ga. at 774 ; Stoker, 272 Ga. App. at 822 (3). [T]he reasons for requiring derivative suits in the ordinary corporate context are (1) to prevent multiple suits by shareholders; (2) to protect corporate creditors by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation; (3) to protect the interest of all the shareholders by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation, rather than allowing recovery by one or a few shareholders to the prejudice of others; and (4) to adequately compensate injured shareholders by increasing their share values. | 4 | 4 |
Southwest Health and Wellness, LLC v. Workgreen2 sentences2023“The general rule is that a shareholder seeking to recover misappropriated corporate funds may only bring a derivative suit” because “claims for 9 misappropriation and waste of corporate assets belong to the corporation.” (Citation omitted.) Southwest Health & Wellness, LLC v. Work, 282 Ga. App. 619, 625 (2) (b) ( 639 SE2d 570 ) (2006). “[E]ven where the allegations of the complaint do not show standing to assert a direct action, a direct action may nevertheless be proper in the context of a closely held corporation where the circumstances show that the reasons for the general rule requiring a 2023“The general rule is that a shareholder seeking to recover misappropriated corporate funds may only bring a derivative suit” because “claims for 9 misappropriation and waste of corporate assets belong to the corporation.” (Citation omitted.) Southwest Health & Wellness, LLC v. Work, 282 Ga. App. 619, 625 (2) (b) ( 639 SE2d 570 ) (2006). “[E]ven where the allegations of the complaint do not show standing to assert a direct action, a direct action may nevertheless be proper in the context of a closely held corporation where the circumstances show that the reasons for the general rule requiring a | 3 | 3 |
Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeldgreen2 sentences2010(Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 286 Ga. App. 61, 64 (2) ( 648 SE2d 399 ) (2007). 2010(Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 286 Ga. App. 61, 64 (2) ( 648 SE2d 399 ) (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Stoker v. BELLEMEADE, LLCgreen1 sentence2010See Thomas, 250 Ga. at 774 ; Stoker, 272 Ga. App. at 822 (3). [T]he reasons for requiring derivative suits in the ordinary corporate context are (1) to prevent multiple suits by shareholders; (2) to protect corporate creditors by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation; (3) to protect the interest of all the shareholders by ensuring that the recovery goes to the corporation, rather than allowing recovery by one or a few shareholders to the prejudice of others; and (4) to adequately compensate injured shareholders by increasing their share values. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grace Bros. v. Farley Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Thomas v. Dickson, 250 Ga. 772, 774-775 ( 301 SE2d 49 ) (1983); Grace Bros., [supra] at 819 . 2005Thomas v. Dickson, 250 Ga. 772, 774-775 , 301 S.E.2d 49 (1983); Grace Bros., 264 Ga. at 819 , 450 S.E.2d 814 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
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.