For Your Data Davis V. Sheerin Example Brief
April 11, 2016
Edit
Davis v. Sheerin case brief summary
754 S.W.2d 375 (1988)
CASE FACTS
Appellee sued appellants for oppressive comport toward appellee every bit a minority shareholder inward a corporation in addition to breach of fiduciary duties. Appellee likewise claimed he was entitled to a 45 per centum ownership involvement inward a full general partnership, including for certain tracts of land, based on breach of the fiduciary duty inward connecter amongst the partnership. The trial courtroom constitute that appellee had a 45 per centum involvement inward the corporation, the partnership, in addition to the land. Appellant challenged the trial court's ordered buy-out of appellee's stock; 24-hour interval of the month of a receiver; the companionship to pay dividends inward the future; an respect to appellee of a 45 per centum ownership share; imposition of a resulting trust; in addition to forced sale of the property, amongst 45 per centum of the proceeds to move distributed to appellee.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed inward part, reversed inward part, in addition to remanded the companionship granting appellee relief inward his activeness against appellants for oppressive comport in addition to breach of fiduciary duties involving a corporation in addition to a partnership. The courtroom affirmed a buy-out of appellee's stock, merely it reversed the grant of a mandatory injunction to pay time to come dividends, every bit good every bit the finding that belongings should move champaign of written report to forced sale.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
754 S.W.2d 375 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant challenged the determination of the 127th District Court, Harris County (Texas), which constitute that appellee owned a 45 per centum part inward a corporation in addition to inward a partnership, which included half dozen tracts of land.CASE FACTS
Appellee sued appellants for oppressive comport toward appellee every bit a minority shareholder inward a corporation in addition to breach of fiduciary duties. Appellee likewise claimed he was entitled to a 45 per centum ownership involvement inward a full general partnership, including for certain tracts of land, based on breach of the fiduciary duty inward connecter amongst the partnership. The trial courtroom constitute that appellee had a 45 per centum involvement inward the corporation, the partnership, in addition to the land. Appellant challenged the trial court's ordered buy-out of appellee's stock; 24-hour interval of the month of a receiver; the companionship to pay dividends inward the future; an respect to appellee of a 45 per centum ownership share; imposition of a resulting trust; in addition to forced sale of the property, amongst 45 per centum of the proceeds to move distributed to appellee.
DISCUSSION
- Under full general equity powers, the trial courtroom had the authorisation to companionship a buy-out, which was warranted inward persuasion of appellants' oppressive behavior.
- Thus, the courtroom affirmed the trial court's companionship for buy-out of appellee's stock, merely the mandatory injunction to pay dividends inward the time to come was unwarranted, in addition to the companionship for a forced sale of the province was replaced amongst an companionship for segmentation inward kind.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed inward part, reversed inward part, in addition to remanded the companionship granting appellee relief inward his activeness against appellants for oppressive comport in addition to breach of fiduciary duties involving a corporation in addition to a partnership. The courtroom affirmed a buy-out of appellee's stock, merely it reversed the grant of a mandatory injunction to pay time to come dividends, every bit good every bit the finding that belongings should move champaign of written report to forced sale.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law