I didn't know about this case so I read about it. It doesn't tell the whole story.
"In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow or Shlensky v. Wrigley. The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole. "
Does Facebook's board of director's have any power over Zuckerberg?
It wasn't to fulfill any kind of dream or vision. Ford didn't like his shareholders, quality was getting hammered by high turnover and he had a weird paternalistic desire to exert more control over his employees (as well as to head off the looming strike threat).
That’s not entirely accurate, see Henry Ford suspending shareholder dividends, raising employee wages and lowering price of cars for consumers to fulfill vision of every American family owning a (Ford) car.
Shareholders sued and won because Ford owed and violated his duty to shareholders.
Since that time the Law has evolved to extend director/officer protections - even allowing officers to raid corporate funds to ensure directors re-elect the officers - but The voting rights don’t relieve Zuck of his duties to other shareholders in his capacity as director and/or officer.