Skoglund v. Ormand Industries, Inc.

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 stockholder’s purpose must “not be adverse to the interests of the corporation”
• holding that to invoke the unclean hands doctrine, a plaintiff’s conduct must be “shocking to the integrity of the Court”
• holding that inspection of a stock list “to communicate with other shareholders on matters relating to their common interest, including, among other things, the desirability of changing the board of directors[,]” was proper
• noting that the pursuit of a fishing expedition would be improper
• describing doctrine as “a rule of public policy” rather than “a matter of defense to be applied on behalf of litigants”
• describing doctrine as “a rule of public policy” rather than “a matter of defense to be applied on behalf of litigants”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).