Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 1793. Review of contested corporate action.
(a) General rule.--Upon application of any person aggrieved by any corporate action, the court may hear
and determine the validity of the corporate action.
(b) Powers and procedures.--The court may make such orders in any such case as may be just and proper, with power
to enforce the production of any books, papers and records of the corporation and
other relevant evidence that may relate to the issue. The court shall provide for
notice of the pendency of the proceedings under this section to all persons affected
thereby. If it is determined that no valid corporate action has been taken, the court
may order a meeting to be held in accordance with section 1792 (relating to proceedings
prior to corporate action).
(c) Cross reference.--See section 3138 (relating to judicial supervision of corporate action).
(Dec. 19, 1990, P.L.834, No.198, eff. imd.)
1990 Amendment. Act 198 amended subsec. (c).
Notes of Decisions
Drain v. Covenant Life Ins., 712 A.2d 273 (Pa. 1998).
· cites it 2× “15 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1793 (1995). [4] Jurisdiction under section 1793 does not apply, however, to an insurance corporation if such jurisdiction is inconsistent with the Insurance Department's jurisdiction.”
Koken v. Fid. Mut. Life Ins., 803 A.2d 807 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
“Fust, that case did not decide the question of Commonwealth Court’s Section 761(a)(3) jurisdiction, but held that the common pleas court was wrong not to exercise its jurisdiction under 15 Pa.C.S. § 1793. Second, the “third parties” being sued in Drain were not acting as agents…”
Drain v. Covenant Life Ins., 685 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
“Jurisdiction over the class claim asserted in Count II is vested in the Courts of Common Pleas by 15 Pa.C.S. § 1793, which provides that “[u]pon application of any person aggrieved by any corporate action, the court may hear and determine the validity of the corporate action.”
Copland v. Fischer & Porter Co., 32 Pa. D. & C.4th 57 (1996).
· cites it 2× “Defendants have preliminarily objected to Count I (and II and V, as well), contending: (1) that 15 Pa.C.S. §1793 does not confer standing; and (2) that the suit should be derivative, not direct.”
Traher v. Repub. First Bancorp, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
· cites it 4× “See 15 Pa. C.S. § 1793. Although I have serious questions on the record as it stands whether Plaintiff has been aggrieved in the sense Pennsylvania law intends, making such a determination at the motion to dismiss stage is inappropriate.”
Anchel v. Shea, 44 Pa. D. & C.4th 144 (1999).
“§104 and 15 Pa.C.S. §1793. BACKGROUND These findings and conclusions are preliminary in nature, are based upon the record before the court, and are mainly limited to the facts necessary for the determination of the present injunctive requests.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1793(a) — 1 case
Traher v. Repub. First Bancorp, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
“See 15 Pa. C.S. § 1793. Although I have serious questions on the record as it stands whether Plaintiff has been aggrieved in the sense Pennsylvania law intends, making such a determination at the motion to dismiss stage is inappropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.