WOOTEN ET AL.

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Kohn v. Am. Metal Climax, Inc., 458 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1972)
  …among a corporation, its directors, officers, and shareholders, the applicable law is that of the state of incorporation E. g., Zahn v. Transamerica Corp., 162 F. 2d 36 (3d Cir. 1947).58 In Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F. 2d 696 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 885, 82 S.Ct. 1157, 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962), it was held that the Venezuelan substantive law was applicable to determine whether shareholders had the right to object to certain action taken by officers and directors where the company was incorporated in Ve…
• Goldberg v. Yaacov Meridor, 567 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …) (Cardozo, J.), it is not at all clear that New York law determines the availability of an injunction in this situation in spite of the provisions of § 1317 of the General Business Law. See Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F. 2d 696 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 369 U.S. 885, 82 S.Ct. 1157, 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962). See Reese & Kaufman, The Law Governing Corporate Affairs: Choice of Law and the Impact of Full Faith and Credit, 58 Colum.L.Rev. 1118 (1958); Loss, The Conflict of Laws and the Blue Sky Laws, 71 Harv. L.Rev. 209…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Drachman v. Harvey, 453 F.2d 722 (2d Cir. 1971)
  …party in interest,” a purely procedural question under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b), and who may assert shareholders’ rights on behalf of the corporation. . Appellees strongly urge us to follow Hausman v. Buckley, 299 F. 2d 696, 701 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 369 U.S. 885, 82 S.Ct. 1157, 8 L.Ed.2d 286 (1962). This was a shareholder’s derivative action brought under diversity jurisdiction, in which the question was not “who is a ‘shareholder,’ ” but whether a shareholder had standing to sue in a New York federal forum…