TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Timothy B. McDonald and Esther S. McDonald v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Timothy B. McDONALD and Esther S. McDonald, Appellants, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. Et Al., Appellees

McDonald v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 630 F.2d 648 (8th Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 24, 1980
Docket
No. 80-1056
Judges
Lay, Ross, Porter
Citations
630 F.2d 6481980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13742

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, two stockholders of Northwest Airlines, Timothy and Esther McDonald, sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against the airline for its alleged publication of a false and misleading proxy solicitation. In their complaint, the plaintiffs/appellants specifically charged that an advertisement published by Northwest Airlines contained false and misleading statements of fact which were material to a Shareholder Proposal presented by the appellants, and that the advertisement constituted an unlawful proxy solicitation in violation of the Security and Exchange Commission Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78n, and the rules promulgated thereunder.

On May 15, 1978, Judge Donald D. Alsop denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction. On October 26, 1978, the defendant airline filed a motion for summary judgment, and the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Patrick J. McNulty for a hearing and recommendation. Magistrate McNulty recommended on April 4, 1978, that Northwest’s motion for summary judgment be granted. On December 13, 1979, Judge Alsop ordered that summary judgment of dismissal be entered. Plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment.

We have examined the briefs and the record in this appeal, and appellants’ arguments have been carefully considered. It is our conclusion, however, that the district court’s granting of the summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Alsop’s opinion of December 13, 1979, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt628 F. Supp. 378 (D.D.C. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt628 F. Supp. 378 (D.D.C. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list