FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 87
Stockholder's derivative action
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
Any civil action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be prosecuted in any judicial district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
28 U.S.C. § 1401 (Stockholder's derivative action) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
In the Matter of Emanuel Josephson
218 F.2d 174 (First Circuit, 1954)
Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company
917 F.2d 1574 (Federal Circuit, 1990)
Transunion Corporation and Union Industries, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.
811 F.2d 127 (Second Circuit, 1987)
University Research Co. v. United States
65 Fed. Cl. 500 (Federal Claims, 2005)
AP Industries, Inc. v. SN Phelps (In Re AP Industries, Inc.)
117 B.R. 789 (S.D. New York, 1990)
Zurich American Insurance v. Tejas Concrete & Materials Inc.
982 F. Supp. 2d 714 (W.D. Texas, 2013)
Edwards v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
313 F. Supp. 3d 618 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)
DirecTV, Inc. v. EQ Stuff, Inc.
207 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (C.D. California, 2002)
Smith v. Murchison
310 F. Supp. 1079 (S.D. New York, 1970)
Continental Insurance v. Beecham, Inc.
836 F. Supp. 1027 (D. New Jersey, 1993)
Korn v. Merrill
403 F. Supp. 377 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Glicken v. Bradford
204 F. Supp. 300 (S.D. New York, 1962)
H. Gabriel Murphy v. Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc.
324 F.2d 394 (D.C. Circuit, 1963)
Van Gelder v. Taylor
621 F. Supp. 613 (N.D. Illinois, 1985)
Messinger v. United Canso Oil & Gas Ltd.
80 F.R.D. 730 (D. Connecticut, 1978)
Louis v. Hagel
177 F. Supp. 3d 401 (District of Columbia, 2016)
Lapides v. Doner
248 F. Supp. 883 (E.D. Michigan, 1965)
State Farm Mutual, Automobile Insurance v. Tz'Doko V'Chesed
543 F. Supp. 2d 424 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
Norte & Co. v. Defiance Industries, Inc., and R. L. Huffines, Jr., Victor Muscat, L F. Serrick, Alfred O'Gara and Edward Krock
319 F.2d 336 (Second Circuit, 1963)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §112 (part) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §51, 36 Stat. 1101; Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 345, 42 Stat. 849; Mar. 4, 1925, ch. 526, §1, 43 Stat. 1264; Apr. 16, 1936, ch. 230, 49 Stat. 1213).
For disposition of other provisions of section 112 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., see reviser's note under section 1391 of this title.
Words "civil action" were substituted for "suit," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Words "other than said corporation," after "same defendants," were omitted as superfluous. Obviously a corporation would not be suing itself.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §112 (part) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §51, 36 Stat. 1101; Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 345, 42 Stat. 849; Mar. 4, 1925, ch. 526, §1, 43 Stat. 1264; Apr. 16, 1936, ch. 230, 49 Stat. 1213).
For disposition of other provisions of section 112 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., see reviser's note under section 1391 of this title.
Words "civil action" were substituted for "suit," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Words "other than said corporation," after "same defendants," were omitted as superfluous. Obviously a corporation would not be suing itself.
Changes were made in phraseology.