King v. Board of Regents

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that “the fact that the Board may have known that [a government] investigation was underway does not support an inference that the Board actually knew that illegal conduct was occurring”
• noting that “some courts have determined that a core operations theory of proving knowledge is never applicable to outside directors”
• “Because shareholder derivative actions are not common in Minnesota, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has not revisited the standard governing futility since Winter, this court has looked to the demand futility analyses established by the Delaware courts for guidance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).