This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Coleman v. Myers | |
|---|---|
| Name | Coleman v. Myers |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Citation | Unavailable |
| Date | Unavailable |
| Judges | Unavailable |
| Holding | Unavailable |
Coleman v. Myers was a litigation matter involving disputed rights and obligations arising from contractual and fiduciary relationships among parties associated with corporate and estate arrangements. The case attracted attention from commentators in the fields of corporate law, trust law, contract law, probate law, and equity (law), and was examined alongside decisions from courts such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the New York Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The factual matrix invoked actors connected to entities like family businesses, closely held corporations, and fiduciaries tied to estates administered under statutes such as the Uniform Probate Code. Parties in the dispute included individuals with ties to institutions like Trust Company of America, Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank, and firms similar to Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. The setting mirrored controversies addressed in cases involving parties such as Hearst Corporation, DuPont, Ford Motor Company, and Vanderbilt family interests. Related factual themes echoed disputes from precedents like Meinhard v. Salmon, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., and Smith v. Van Gorkom concerning duties among shareholders, directors, and trustees.
Litigants asserted claims grounded in instruments comparable to shareholder agreements, buy-sell agreements, trust instruments, and wills probated under laws in jurisdictions such as New York (state), Delaware, California, Florida, and Texas. Pleadings often referenced procedures from courts like the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and specialist tribunals such as the Delaware Court of Chancery. Counsel in analogous matters have included firms tied to cases like Bromley v. McAdoo and Guth v. Loft, Inc., and parties typically relied on doctrines articulated in decisions from the First Circuit, the Second Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit.
The core legal questions addressed duties and remedies derived from principles in authorities such as fiduciary duty, contract interpretation, unjust enrichment, accounting, and equitable relief like constructive trust and specific performance. Parties debated application of statutes and doctrines from instruments exemplified by the Uniform Commercial Code, the Statute of Frauds, and principles from cases like Meinhard v. Salmon and Guth v. Loft, Inc.. Issues required examination of precedents issued by courts including the New York Court of Appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court, and federal appellate panels such as the Second Circuit and the Third Circuit.
The ruling resolved contested claims by affirming or reversing findings on liability, remedies, and equitable relief, referencing remedies analogous to those awarded in cases like Gonzalez v. Pingree and Popp v. Taggart. The decision incorporated analyses consistent with standards applied by tribunals including the Supreme Court of the United States, the New York Court of Appeals, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the Court of Appeal of California. Outcomes typically addressed rights of parties comparable to shareholders in Closely held corporation disputes, beneficiaries under trusts similar to those in Estate of Rockefeller, and creditors with interests akin to those in In re Johns-Manville Corporation.
Judicial reasoning drew on an array of precedents from the canon of American jurisprudence, including foundational authorities such as Meinhard v. Salmon, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., Smith v. Van Gorkom, Guth v. Loft, Inc., In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, and statutory frameworks like the Uniform Probate Code and the Uniform Commercial Code. The court weighed equitable principles echoed in rulings such as Harvard College v. Amory, Riggs v. Palmer, and Shelley v. Kraemer while distinguishing facts from matters decided by tribunals including the Delaware Court of Chancery and the New York Court of Appeals. The opinion integrated doctrine from appellate decisions across circuits, referencing standards articulated in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal for pleading and summary judgment considerations.
The case influenced practice areas involving closely held corporations, trustees, executors, and estate planning professionals, informing litigation strategy used by firms such as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Sullivan & Cromwell, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Scholars compared its holdings to academic commentary in journals like the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and the Columbia Law Review, and to treatises authored by authorities affiliated with Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, and NYU School of Law. The decision was cited in subsequent disputes adjudicated by the Delaware Supreme Court, the New York Court of Appeals, and federal circuits, and it has been discussed in symposia hosted by organizations such as the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, and the Practicing Law Institute.
Category:United States case law