Spickler v. York

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \it is only proper to bring a suit for a corporation through a licensed attorney\
• noting that the issue for a jury in an attorney malpractice action is whether the attorney's conduct \was a substantial factor in bringing about the loss of the initial action\
• af:firming the dismissal of a counterclaim brought by a pro se litigant on behalf of a corporation and holding that a corporation \cannot bring an action unless it is represented by a licensed attorney.\
• “In a shareholder’s derivative suit, the wrong complained of is to the corporation, and the shareholder is merely a nominal plaintiff”
• when the court granted plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to add derivative claim at mid-trial, defendant was left with no opportunity to prepare defense to derivative claim
• where defendant was unable to obtain expert to rebut surprise expert witness’s testimony, “the jury was left with the impression that, during the nine years before trial, [the defendant] was unable to find a single [expert] who was willing to advance his position”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).