Citation network
Bangor Punta Operations Vs. Bangor and Aroostook R.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1974
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Bangor Punta Operations v. BangorSearch
-
Aroostook R. - 417 U.S. 703 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Bangor Punta Operations v. BangorSearch
-
Aroostook R., 417 U.S. 703 (1974) Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. BangorSearch
-
would have no standing in equity to maintain this action for alleged corporate mismanagement. Home Fire Insurance Co. v. BarberSearch
-
his shares from those who participated or acquiesced in the allegedly wrongful transactions. See, e.g., Bloodworth v. BloodworthSearch
-
Babcock v. FarwellSearch
-
then seeks to have the corporation recover against that vendor for prior corporate mismanagement. See, e.g., Matthews v. HeadleySearch
-
Home Fire Insurance Co. v. BarberSearch
-
Neb. 644, 661-662, 93 N.W. 1024, 1030-1031 (1903). See also Amen v. BlackSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
explicated long ago by Dean (then Commissioner) Roscoe Pound in Home Page 417 U. S. 711 Fire Insurance Co. v. BarberSearch
-
disregarded in the interests of justice where it is used to defeat an overriding public policy. New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSearch
-
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. MinneapolisSearch
-
preclude the shareholders from maintaining an action in their own right, the corporation would also be precluded. Amen v. BlackSearch
-
Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp. v. PokrassSearch
-
Matthews v. HeadleySearch
-
and the common law of Maine. In Forbes v. WellsSearch
-
See Hyams v. OldSearch
-
entity may be disregarded if equity so demands is accepted by Maine precedents. See, e.g., Bonnar-Vawter, Inc. v. JohnsonSearch
-
requirement in shareholder derivative actions was first announced in Hawes v. OaklandSearch
-
was later incorporated in Equity Rule 27 and finally in the present Rule 23.1. After the decision in Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
This principle obtains in the great majority of jurisdictions. See, e.g., Russell v. LouisSearch
-
Klum v. ClintonSearch
-
Clark v. AmericanSearch
-
Boldenweck v. BullisSearch
-
Maine, in fact, had a contemporaneous ownership requirement prior to that time. 353 F.Supp. at 727. See R. Field, V. McKusickSearch
-
basis, even though the action is brought in the name of the corporation to enforce primary rights. See, e.g., Matthews v. HeadleySearch
-
U. S. 410 , 287 U. S. 415 (1932). See also New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSearch
-
therefore concludes that this suit must be barred under the equitable principles set forth in Home Fire Insurance Co. v. BarberSearch
-
antitrust laws. I The majority places primary reliance on Dean Pound's decision in Home Fire Insurance Co. v. BarberSearch
-
Neb. at 655, 93 N.W. at 1028. Cf. Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp. v. PokrassSearch
-
in a derivative action enforces not his own individual rights, but rights which the corporation has. See Meyer v. FlemingSearch
-
Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
SEC v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. Trans-MissouriSearch
-
Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. GulfSearch
-
should pierce the corporate veil only when necessary to serve some paramount public interest, see Schenley Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSearch
-
of our Nation's antitrust laws, specifically designed to protect common carriers such as railroads. See United States v. BostonSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
serve to vindicate this important congressional policy. See Klinger v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Page 417 U. S. 731 I would find counsel instead in this Court's opinion in Perma Life Mufflers v. InternationalSearch
-
Independent Wireless Tel. Co. v. RadioSearch
-
seek redress for wrongs done the corporation might well subject the directors to personal liability. See, e.g., Briggs v. SpauldingSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial