Lawrence Arduini v. Igt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that derivative plaintiffs are in privity under Nevada law, based on assessment of the holdings of “the majority of courts that have addressed this issue” outside of Nevada, where issue had not been addressed
• finding that plaintiffs in a shareholder derivative action are in privity because the corporation is \the true party in interest\
• applying issue preclusion because plaintiffs “adequately litigated their case” even though they did not succeed in alleging demand futility or amend their complaint
• “the majority of courts that have addressed this issue have held that shareholders asserting1 derivative suits are in privity”
• “We ... hold that shareholders bringing derivative suits are in privity for the purposes of issue preclusion .... ”
• “We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).