28 U.S.C. § 1695
Stockholder’s derivative action
Process in a stockholder’s action in behalf of his corporation may be served upon such corporation in any district where it is organized or licensed to do business or is doing business.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2021 · leading case: Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.
Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. (2021)
“§ 1655 (actions to assert rights in property when the defendant cannot be served within the State); 28 U.S.C. § 1695 (service of process on a corporation in a shareholder’s derivative action); 28 U.”
Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf Meyer (1985)
“§ 1655 (1982) (actions seeking to assert rights in real or personal property); 28 U.S.C. § 1695 (1982) (shareholders’ suit against corporation).”
Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd. (1981)
“§ 1655 (1976) (actions seeking to assert rights in real or personal property); 28 U.S.C. § 1695 (1976) (shareholders’ suit against corporation); 15 U.”
Glicken v. Bradford (1962)
“Stock Fund has been served with process in Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1695 , which permits service in any district where the corporation, on behalf of which the action is brought, is doing business.”
Clay v. Thomas (1960)
“After a complaint was filed in this district, personal service was effected in New York upon the individual defendants and the corporation was served in Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1695 . Defendants now move to dismiss the action upon the ground that this court lacks…”
Messinger v. United Canso Oil & Gas Ltd. (1978)
“Since 28 U.S.C. § 1695 authorizes service “in any district where [the derivative corporation] is organized or licensed to do business or is doing business,” this clearly “authorizes service upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within” Connecticut, as required by Rule 4(i);…”
Norte & Co. v. Defiance Industries, Inc., and R. L. Huffines, Jr., Victor Muscat, L F. Serrick, Alfred O'Gara and Edward (1963)
“The plaintiff, a partnership all the members of which are residents of New York, served process on Defiance, an Ohio corporation not licensed to do or *337 doing business in this state, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1695 , which provides for extraterritorial service of process on the…”
Smith v. Murchison (1970)
“The nominal defendant, Alleghany, an indispensable party, which has not questioned service, is subject to jurisdiction in that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1695 . It is unnecessary to decide the motions of defendants Clint Murchison and Harrington to dismiss for want of personal…”
Schwartz v. Bowman (1965)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1695 . It has appeared generally in the action.”
Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd. (1964)
“While there may be constitutional limits to the “reach” of a federal district court’s service of process in diversity actions, if not in federal actions, provisions for nationwide running of federal process such as the interpleader statute, Title 28 U.”
Paul H. Aschkar & Company v. The Honorable Jesse W. Curtis (1964)
“28 U.S.C. § 1695 . 7 . E. g., Stella v. Kaiser (S.”
Liman v. Midland Bank Ltd. (1970)
“” Service of process in a stockholder’s derivative action is provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1695 as follows: “Process in a stockholder’s action in behalf of his corporation may be served upon such corporation in any district where it is organized or licensed to do business or is…”
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.