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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Marx v. Akers.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marx v. Akers Anchor | green | “that the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances,” | 8 |
| 2 | Bansbach v. Zinn | green | “demand is futile, and excused, when the directors are incapable of making an impartial decision as to whether to bring suit” | 8 |
| 3 | Glatzer v. Grossman | green | “to justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.