Connection lost
Server error
SCHNELL v. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company refused to provide a stockholder list for a proxy contest, alleging a conflict of interest because the stockholder’s associate was the company’s former attorney. The court ordered production, holding that a speculative, secondary improper purpose cannot defeat a stockholder’s statutory inspection right.
Legal Significance: Under Delaware law, once a stockholder establishes a proper primary purpose for inspecting a stock list, the corporation cannot defeat that right by alleging a speculative or secondary improper purpose, such as a potential future breach of confidence by an associate of the stockholder.
SCHNELL v. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Schnell, a stockholder in Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. and a member of an independent stockholders’ committee, made a formal demand under 8 Del. C. § 220 to inspect and copy the company’s stockholder list. The stated purpose, which the court found to be proper, was to communicate with fellow stockholders and solicit proxies for an upcoming election of directors in opposition to the current management. Chris-Craft refused the demand. The company’s refusal was based on the fact that another member of Schnell’s committee, attorney David Cohen, had previously served as legal counsel for Chris-Craft. The company argued that Cohen’s involvement created a conflict of interest and tainted the committee’s purpose, raising concerns that Cohen might improperly use confidential information obtained during his prior representation against the company. Chris-Craft contended this potential ethical breach rendered the demand improper. Schnell sued to compel inspection.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a corporation refuse to produce its stockholder list to a shareholder who has stated a proper purpose under 8 Del. C. § 220, on the grounds that an associate of the shareholder on a proxy committee is a former attorney for the corporation, creating a speculative risk of a future breach of professional confidence?
No. The court granted the plaintiff’s demand for the stockholder list. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a corporation refuse to produce its stockholder list to a shareholder who has stated a proper purpose under 8 Del. C. § 220, on the grounds that an associate of the shareholder on a proxy committee is a former attorney for the corporation, creating a speculative risk of a future breach of professional confidence?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the narrow and summary scope of a § 220 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqu
Legal Rule
Under 8 Del. C. § 220, if a stockholder demonstrates a primary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the well-established principle in Delaware corporate law Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A stockholder’s demand to inspect a stock list under 8 Del.