Martinez v. Cape Fox Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing, in a ease interpreting state securities law, that “in 2002 Congress changed the test ... because it believed that courts were applying too stringent a standard”
• where statute provided that superior court \may ... remove\ director for fraudulent acts, court's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion
• where statute provided that superior court \may . . . remove\ director for fraudulent acts, court's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion
• “We ‘will ignore the plain meaning of an enactment . . . where that meaning leads to absurd results or defeats the usefulness of the enactment.’ ” (quoting Davenport v. McGinnis, 522 P.2d 1140, 1144 n.15 (Alaska 1974))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).