Danielewicz v. Arnold

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that appellant had failed to establish that demand futility merely by asserting that two board members of a three-member board of directors were related
• concluding that “any liberal approach” to demand futility “suggested in Parish has certainly become more stringent as a result of the [Court’s] decision in Werbowsky”
• stating that the nonmoving party \must submit evidence in which the [court] could reasonably find for\ the nonmoving party
• stating that the nonmoving party “must submit evidence in which the [court] could reasonably find for” the nonmoving party
• stating that “[t]he Maryland demand requirement is strictly construed and frequently leads to the dismissal of derivative actions”
• holding that this principle is \well-settled law\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).