Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.
Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, owner of 50 percent of the stock in a theater corporation, brought a derivative action in federal court for treble damages for loss of profits allegedly suffered from defendant's violation of the antitrust laws. The district court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal to the court of appeals, held, reversed and remanded. Under the new federal rules, a stockholder may bring a derivative action for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., (2d Cir. 1953) 202 F. (2d) 731.
Summary Judgment Under The Federal Rules When An Issue Of Fact Is Presented, Mac Asbill, Willis B. Snell
Summary Judgment Under The Federal Rules When An Issue Of Fact Is Presented, Mac Asbill, Willis B. Snell
Michigan Law Review
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure introduced to federal practice the summary judgment procedure, which had been developed previously in England and several of the states. The scope of rule 56 is the broadest possible, since the rule provides that any party may move for a summary judgment in any type of civil action. Rule 56(c) provides that the court shall grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving …
Civil Procedure-Joinder Of Causes Of Action In Michigan, J. David Voss
Civil Procedure-Joinder Of Causes Of Action In Michigan, J. David Voss
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiffs were the owners of several lots, and used their respective properties as residences. Defendants, manufacturers of cement and concrete products, operated several large trucks in their business. Plaintiffs filed a declaration to recover damages for injuries to their properties sustained as a result of the loud noises, vibrations, and cement dust caused by the defendants' trucks when using an alley leading to defendants' place of business. The defendants' motion for dismissal on grounds of misjoinder of parties and causes of action was overruled. On appeal, held, reversed. Owners of property are not entitled to be joined in one …