# Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Delaware · November 29, 1971 · 285 A.2d 437

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753228

## Case

- **Full name:** Andrew H. SCHNELL, Jr. and Jack Safer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Delaware
- **Decided:** November 29, 1971
- **Citations:** 285 A.2d 437; 1971 Del. LEXIS 272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wolcott
- **Judges:** Wolcott, Carey, Herrmann
- **Cited by:** 159 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753228

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that “utilizing] the corporate machinery and the Delaware Law for the purpose of perpetuating [management] in office; and, to that end, for the purpose of obstructing the legitimate efforts of dissident stockholders in the exercise of their rights to undertake a proxy …
- holding that actions taken by management to manipulate corporate machinery "for the purpose of obstructing the legitimate efforts of dissident stockholders in the exercise of their rights to undertake a proxy contest against management" were “contrary to established principles…
- holding a board's decision to advance the date of an annual stockholders meeting to be inequitable because the dissident stockholders had geared their campaign towards an already announced meeting date, and because between the short time allowed by the advanced meeting, the ex…
- holding that plaintiffs did not unreasonably delay when they filed suit five days after unofficially learning of management’s changes to the date and location of the meeting

## Opinion text

WOLCOTT, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
I do not agree with the majority of the Court in its disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff stockholders concerned in this litigation have, for a considerable period of time, sought to obtain control of the defendant corporation. These attempts took various forms.
In view of the length of time leading up to the immediate events which caused the filing of this action, I agree with the Vice Chancellor that the application for injunc-tive relief came too late.
I would affirm the judgment below on the basis of the Vice Chancellor’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753228. Public record. Not legal advice.