Madugula v. Taub

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial for an action brought under the Business Corporation Act for alleged violations of the shareholder-oppression provisions of the act, even though the statute also provided for damages as a remedy
• explaining that statutory provisions must be interpreted in the context of the law as a whole
• explaining that statutory provisions must be interpreted in the context of the law as a whole
• recognizing that monetary damages “are generally a legal remedy.”
• observing that damages are considered a legal, as opposed to an equitable remedy
• stating that MCL 450.1489 is “commonly known as the shareholder-oppression statute[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).