Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Moore v. J.W. Marriott, Jr. (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)
- Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1983)
- Freedman v. Beneficial Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1975)
- Valle v. North Jersey Auto. Club (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973)
- Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
- Supermarket Films, Inc. v. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
- NW Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corporation (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1970)
- Lawson v. Baltimore Paint and Chemical Corporation (District Court, D. Maryland 1969)
- DeHaas v. Empire Petroleum Company (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1968)
- Uniroyal, Inc. v. Daly-Herring Co. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1968)
- Goldie v. Yaker (N.M. 1967)
- John J. & Warren H. Graham v. Triangle Publications, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1964)
- Ripley v. International Railways of Central America (N.Y. 1960)
- Lunn v. United Aircraft Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1960)
- Ripley v. International Railways of Central America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Fein v. Security Banknote Company (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
- California Oil Co. v. Travaline (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
- Benton v. Glenn McCarthy, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1957)
- Karol Weinhaus v. Willis Gale (7th Cir. 1956)
- Tobacco & Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1956)
- Acme Fast Freight, Inc. v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1955)
- Glassberg v. Boyd (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1955)
- Glassberg v. Boyd (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1955)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint in a stockholders’ derivative action brought by them on behalf of defendant International Railways of Central America against defendant Compañía Agrícola de Guatemala. In their complaint plaintiffs allege that, they purchased their shares in International Railways in the latter part of 1951, whereas the transactions which they seek to have set aside and cancelled were entered into between Compañía Agrícola and International Railways in 1936 and shortly thereafter. The district court dismissed the complaint because, inter alia, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b), 28 U.S.C.» that they should have been shareholders of International Railways at the time of the transactions of which they complain. The plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges wrongs which continued after their acquisitions of shares and that Rule 23(b) is thereby satisfied. We do not agree. On the contrary we are in full accord with the views upon this subject expressed by Chief Judge Leahy of the district court in his opinion dismissing the complaint, 116 F.Supp. 223, 228-230, and we need add nothing thereto. Since the complaint was properly dismissed because it did not comply with Rule 23(b) we do not consider the applicability of the Delaware statute of limitations, the other ground upon which the district court based its action.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.