U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to Corporate Law
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
- Details: This landmark case revolved around the corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections.
- Significance: The Court held that corporate funding restrictions violate the First Amendment. This ruling fundamentally reshaped campaign financing in the U.S., allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts in support or opposition of candidates.
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius (2014)
- Details: This case examined whether for-profit companies can deny employees health coverage of contraception based on the owner’s religious objections.
- Significance: The Court ruled that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraceptives under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, recognizing corporate religious rights.
- Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919)
- Details: Shareholders sued Ford for not distributing extra profits as dividends and instead using them to lower car prices.
- Significance: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a business corporation is organized primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of directors are to be employed for that end.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)
- Details: Similar to the aforementioned Hobby Lobby case, this case also dealt with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.
- Significance: The Court held that the Contraceptive Mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (2018)
- Details: The issue was whether state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only Securities Act of 1933 violations.
- Significance: The Court ruled that state courts have jurisdiction over class actions brought under the Securities Act of 1933, and defendants cannot remove such suits to federal court.
- Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (2015)
- Details: The case questioned if, under the Securities Act of 1933, a statement of opinion can be considered “untrue” merely because it was objectively wrong.
- Significance: The Court held that if a speaker doesn’t believe an expressed opinion, or the opinion lacks factual grounding, it can be considered misleading under certain circumstances.
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (2010)
- Details: Concerned the extraterritorial reach of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, particularly concerning non-U.S. companies.
- Significance: The Court ruled that Section 10(b) of the Act does not provide a cause of action for foreign plaintiffs suing foreign and American defendants for misconduct related to securities traded on foreign exchanges.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
- Details: This case challenged the physical presence requirement for state sales tax collection, especially concerning online sales.
- Significance: The Court held that states can require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on goods sold to state residents, even if the retailer doesn’t have a physical presence in the state.
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988)
- Details: The case revolved around material misrepresentations affecting stock prices and the “fraud-on-the-market” theory.
- Significance: The Court embraced the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, recognizing that in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by available material information.
- Cort v. Ash (1975)
- Details: Explored if private shareholders could sue corporate directors for violating federal criminal statutes.
- Significance: The Court held that private shareholders couldn’t sue under this specific federal criminal statute, emphasizing the importance of direct causation and harm.
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.
Thank you for your sharing. I am worried that I lack creative ideas. It is your article that makes me full of hope. Thank you. But, I have a question, can you help me?
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.
Thank you for your sharing. I am worried that I lack creative ideas. It is your article that makes me full of hope. Thank you. But, I have a question, can you help me?
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.