Law Case Analysis
Law Case Analysis
Material Facts and Source of Law
The plaintiff William Shelensky was a director who owned a minority stockholder of Defendant Corporation called Chicago National League Ball Club, which operated Chicago Cubs. The Cubs had been suffering operating losses from direct baseball operations from 1961-1965. The director defendant Philip K. Wrigley who owned 80% stock shares did not install lights at Wrigley Field so that the Cubs could not play at night when at home, even though the other 19 major league teams scheduled night games. Defendant (Wrigley) claimed that baseball is a day sport and that playing at night would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. William appealed a lawsuit against the director Philip K. Wrigley and other directors that their mismanagement of not building lights for night games was contrary and unrelated to business interest, causing inadequate attendance and company financial losing. Oppositely, defendants argued that courts couldn’t interfere business decisions unless there is fraud, illegality or conflict of interest.
The source of law is case law where the rules of law announced in court decisions. Mr. Justice Sullivan judge on this case based on previous ground rules deprived from other 10 affirmed cases.
Specific Legal Issues
The case of Shlensky vs. Wrigley involves both question of law and question of fact. It involves question of law because plaintiff and defendant have different positions in interpreting rules. The Plaintiff holds that fraud, illegality and conflict of interest are not the only bases for stockholder to sue the directors while the defendant hold opposite position. Therefore, it needs judge to interpret and apply the law in this case. It also involves the question of fact, which is whether it likes plaintiff’s saying that defendants’ refusal of constructing lights for night games attributed to the company loss.
Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff Shensky was advocating for the damages
Material Facts and Source of Law
The plaintiff William Shelensky was a director who owned a minority stockholder of Defendant Corporation called Chicago National League Ball Club, which operated Chicago Cubs. The Cubs had been suffering operating losses from direct baseball operations from 1961-1965. The director defendant Philip K. Wrigley who owned 80% stock shares did not install lights at Wrigley Field so that the Cubs could not play at night when at home, even though the other 19 major league teams scheduled night games. Defendant (Wrigley) claimed that baseball is a day sport and that playing at night would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. William appealed a lawsuit against the director Philip K. Wrigley and other directors that their mismanagement of not building lights for night games was contrary and unrelated to business interest, causing inadequate attendance and company financial losing. Oppositely, defendants argued that courts couldn’t interfere business decisions unless there is fraud, illegality or conflict of interest.
The source of law is case law where the rules of law announced in court decisions. Mr. Justice Sullivan judge on this case based on previous ground rules deprived from other 10 affirmed cases.
Specific Legal Issues
The case of Shlensky vs. Wrigley involves both question of law and question of fact. It involves question of law because plaintiff and defendant have different positions in interpreting rules. The Plaintiff holds that fraud, illegality and conflict of interest are not the only bases for stockholder to sue the directors while the defendant hold opposite position. Therefore, it needs judge to interpret and apply the law in this case. It also involves the question of fact, which is whether it likes plaintiff’s saying that defendants’ refusal of constructing lights for night games attributed to the company loss.
Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff Shensky was advocating for the damages