

United States: 

Dodge V. Ford Motor Co. Could However Be “Good Regulation” In Michigan, But What About California?



To print this report, all you have to have is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Professor Stephen Bainbridge recently 
controverted the following assertion that Dodge
v. Ford Motor Co. does not depict the legislation of
Michigan:
. . . the assert that “shareholder primacy” is the
“traditional paradigm” is absurd. The single case
reference is predictably Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459
(1919) which does not depict the legislation in the extensive bulk of
states, like Michigan. See Lynn A. Stout, Why We Really should End
Instructing Dodge v. Ford (UCLA, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 07-11,
2007). Ewan McGaughey, The
Codetermination Bargains: The Background of German Corporate and Labor
Legislation, 23 Colum. J. Eur. L. 135, 176 n.71 (2016).
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. is famous in corporate
legislation circles for the Michigan Supreme Court’s asseveration that
a business corporation “is arranged and carried on
principally for the revenue of the stockholders”. 
As far as I could figure out, no California court has adopted the
situation. In point, I could obtain just one released California
opinion that cites the case. Hill v. State Farm
Mutual Car Ins. Co., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1438, 1493
(2008). In that situation, the Court docket of Appeal described
that Dodge was reviewed in a different renowned
corporate law impression, Shlensky v. Wrigley, 85
Sick. Application. 2d 173 (1968).
In closing, I find 
arguments about corporate law principle that count on
analogies to Nazis to be singularly execrable.
The written content of this report is supposed to give a general
guide to the subject matter subject. Specialist assistance must be sought
about your particular situation.
Well-liked Articles ON: Corporate/Industrial Legislation from United States
