Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 11, 1968.

Decided Jan. 11, 1968.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-01-11

2 counsel of record

Relies on Veatch v. Resor · 262 F. Supp. 931 - Weitzen v. Kearns

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-01-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1986

5 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jerome J. Londin, New York City (Carro, Spanboek & Londin, Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

¶2Stanley L. Kaufman, New York City (Kaufman, Taylor, Kimmel & Miller, Shephard S. Miller, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3 *311Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5We affirm in open court the order of the Southern District denying a motion by Order to Show Cause by Solitron Devices, Inc., for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to Section 627 of the New York Business Corporation Law, McKinneys’s Consol.Laws, c. 4, for the reasons stated in Judge Bonsai’s opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns, 262 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y.1966).