STOTLAND v. GAF CORP.


469 A.2d 421 (1983)

David STOTLAND and Adele Stotland on behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of GAF Corporation, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. GAF CORPORATION, et al., Defendants Below, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Decided: December 5, 1983.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William Prickett, Jr., Michael Hanrahan, and Vernon R. Proctor, Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, for appellants.

Steven J. Rothschild, Andrew J. Turezyn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, for the individual appellees.

Jack B. Jacobs, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, for appellee GAF Corp.

Before HERRMANN, C.J., HORSEY and MOORE, JJ.


PER CURIAM:

The appellees move to dismiss this appeal for mootness. The action was filed in the Court of Chancery as a stockholders' derivative suit, and subsequently was ordered dismissed because of the plaintiffs' failure to comply with Chancery Rule 23.1, respecting a demand upon the directors of the corporate defendant, GAF Corporation (GAF), or otherwise to demonstrate the futility of such demand.1 After dismissal, but before taking...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases