Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 10/30/2000
Carolina First Corp. v. Whittle
Citations
- 539 S.E.2d 402
- 343 S.C. 176
- 2000 S.C. App. LEXIS 171
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding shareholders did not comply with Rule 23(b)(1) because their complaint did not contain allegations regarding what they demanded and what the board of directors rejected
- noting the shareholders only alleged in their complaint that they demanded “certain information” and “certain actions” and made a “supplemental demand”
- affirming dismissal based on failure to allege compliance with state demand requirement
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Howard, Goolsby, Connor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Nemazee v. Premier, Inc.S.D. New York· 2002-11-13· cited 26×
- Clearwater Trust v. BuntingSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-02-06· cited 16×
- Walbeck v. I'On Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2018-08-08· cited 11×
- Rob Star v. TI Oldfield Development, LLCFourth Circuit· 2020-06-10· cited 8×
- Allen Patterson, Steve Tilton, Richard Sendler, Lincoln Privette, Marc Ellis, Joey Carter, Barry Davis, Michael Nieri, Allen Patterson Residential LLC v. WitterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-11-14· cited 5×
- Patterson v. WitterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2016-06-15· cited 1×
- Karl & Terri Hager v. McCabe, Trotter & BeverlyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2022-02-09
- Brad Walbeck v. The I'On CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina· 2023-02-08
- Turner v. Hunt Hill Apartments, LLCNorth Carolina Business Court· 2020-02-11
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 1,291×
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware· 1984-03-01· cited 1,206×
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court· 1882-01-16· cited 631×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,860 Athalie Doris Joy v. Nelson L. North, Nelson L. NorthSecond Circuit· 1982-11-04· cited 388×
- Levine v. SmithSupreme Court of Delaware· 1991-05-01· cited 325×
- Spiegel v. BuntrockSupreme Court of Delaware· 1990-03-19· cited 293×
- Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. FoxSupreme Court· 1984-01-18· cited 281×
- Pogostin v. RiceSupreme Court of Delaware· 1984-06-21· cited 195×
- Lewis v. CurtisThird Circuit· 1982-03-03· cited 194×
- In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. KauffmanFirst Circuit· 1973-05-14· cited 157×
- Alfred Blasband v. Steven M. Rales Mitchell P. Rales John Doe 1-10 Danaher Corporation, Alfred Blasband, Derivatively on Behalf of Danaher CorporationThird Circuit· 1992-07-31· cited 121×
- SSI Medical Services, Inc. v. CoxSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-06-29· cited 99×
- Allison Ex Rel. General Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp.D. Delaware· 1985-03-19· cited 79×
- Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware· 1988-04-19· cited 74×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,297 Charles Heit v. Walter S. BairdFirst Circuit· 1977-12-29· cited 73×
- Houle v. LowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1990-07-05· cited 63×
- McCormick v. EnglandCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-11-17· cited 52×
- Larimore v. Carolina Power & LightCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-04-17· cited 46×
- Stoner v. WalshS.D. New York· 1991-08-22· cited 39×
- Lewis Ex Rel. National Semiconductor Corp. v. SporckN.D. California· 1985-04-09· cited 38×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.