Barth v. Barth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court would not exalt form over substance where the aggrieved minority shareholder could have satisfied the requirements for bringing a derivative action
• court would not exalt form over substance where the aggrieved minority shareholder could have satisfied the requirements for bringing a derivative action
• one shareholder, who had been frozen out of a closely held corporation which had three shareholders, was not required to maintain a derivative action but could properly bring suit in his own name for one of the shareholder's breach of fiduciary duties
• one shareholder, who had been frozen out of a closely held corporation which had three shareholders, was not required to maintain a derivative action but could properly bring suit in his own name for one of the shareholder's breach of fiduciary duties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Barth v. Barth
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1995-12-29· cited 78×
• Barth v. Barth
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-03-23· cited 24×
• Marcuccilli v. Ken Corp.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2002-04-22· cited 14×
• G & N AIRCRAFT, INC. v. Boehm
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-11-30· cited 6×
• Pfaffenberger v. Brooks
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1995-07-18· cited 5×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1991-03-18· cited 109×
• South Eastern Indiana Natural Gas Co. v. Ingram
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1993-07-19· cited 46×
• Gabhart v. Gabhart
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1977-12-16· cited 43×
• Runde v. Vigus Realty, Inc.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1993-07-21· cited 33×