This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company is frequently cited as support for the idea that "corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth." I've added a section that discusses that interpretation. Please feel free to add other links that take either side. -- Vrmlguy ( talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You're missing an important piece of the facts...the Dodge brothers were early investors in Ford Motors who had through extraordinary dividends reaped more (far more actually) than a 100% return on their investment and were getting a 5% MONTHLY regular dividend... Maczenwes ( talk) 09:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This alludes to an answer to the question I just posted in the "Discussion Pages" here. If true, and/or whatever the truth is ("reliable sources", etc...), it should be detailed in the Article. 107.195.106.201 ( talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I've just reverted the wholesale removal by an anonymous editor of the entire "significance" section. I suspect an agenda is at play here -- this case is often cited by anti-corporate propagandists as establishing a strict requirement on companies to maximize profits, which the significance section showed quite clearly to be at best a controversial interpretation of the case. Might be worth some more regular wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this page for potential vandalism/agenda-pushing? 212.159.69.4 ( talk) 10:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The Article doesn't mention this, and I think it's a critical fact. If for example, Dodge were somehow shareholders, I could see how they had standing, but it appears to me that Dodge was a competitor, and had no legal standing to file suit in the first place. I just read about this case for the first time ever, and it's very interesting to me, but there's a big void in the Article on this question, IMO. 107.195.106.201 ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Came across this, maybe useful.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what-happened-and-why/

2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6375 ( talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply