Lawler v. Marshall

How courts have described this case

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

• holding where “(t]he terms of those elected [to the Board]... have expired,” it “render[s] moot the question of the validity of that election” (emphasis added)
• dismissing a derivative claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because the knowledge of disinterested directors “was attributable to the Corporation and no 'deception’ occurred within the meaning of Rule 10b-5”
• criticizing use of Section 14(a) to redress mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty
• “stockholder approval of the modification of Zapata’s stock option plan was not required under its charter or bylaws and was not mandated by Delaware law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).