205 Wis. 2d 558 - Read v. Read’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]bsent an individual right, a shareholder may not bring suit for actions accruing to the corporation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 Wis. 2d 856 - Einhorn v. Culea · Borne v. Gonstead Advanced Techniques, Inc.

2. “in the nature of one for failure to join a necessary party, which does not operate as an adjudication on the merits under federal or North Carolina law.” (Mem. Opp. Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 28) at 29). However, as discussed in section 111(B)(1)(a), supra, the motion to dismiss in Beekworth I was granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and was with prejudice. Therefore, the dismissal of the Second Claim for Relief was "on the merits” and has res judicata effect. . The defendants also moved to dismiss the Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth and Sixteenth Causes of Action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, because the court granted the motion to dismiss those causes of action on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, the court does not address them here. . As discussed in section 111(A), the derivative claims on behalf of DTC in the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Cause of Action were dismissed for lack of standing. Such claims also fail because they are intracorporate disputes. . The defendants argue in the alternative, without any supporting authority, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under Conn. Gen.Stat. sections 33-896 and 33-948(a). These statutes give jurisdiction to "[t]he superior court for the judicial district where the corporation's principal office or, if none in this state, its registered office, is located”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 F. Supp. 3d 186 - Beckworth ex rel. Discount Trophy & Co. v. Bizier

3. “A party may set forth 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one claim or defense or in separate claims or defenses. When 2 or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in s. 802.05.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank National Association