Kirley v. Kirley

How courts have described this case

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

• continuing cause of action is not established simply by asserting ongoing harm
• ongoing injuries following alleged wrongdoing did not toll statute of limitations
• imposing the tort statute of limitations on a corporate “freeze-out” claim because there was no promise to be enforced and the duty to the minority shareholder is “one imposed by law because of the nature of the relationship and not because of an agreement between the parties”
• a corporate “freeze-out” of a minority shareholder was held to be governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to actions of tort
• a corporate “freeze-out” of a minority shareholder was held to be governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to actions of tort
• though “the line between the two types of claims for these purposes is not sharp,” minority shareholder’s freeze-out claim for wrongful termination and depletion of corporate assets sounded in tort

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).