Legal Opinion
Maudlin v. Pacific Decision Sciences Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 21, 2006No. G035060PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
IKOLA, J.
When plaintiff Melvin J. Maudlin retired from his full-time employment with Pacific Decision Sciences Corporation (PDSC), he negotiated a deal with his longtime business partner, Hark Vasa, by which PDSC would pay him $2.9 million over a period of nearly 23 years. Their agreement allocated $150,000 for the redemption of Maudlin’s 300,000 shares of stock (about 30 percent of the outstanding shares), with the balance of $2.75 million, designated by the transaction’s documents as “deferred compensation,” to be paid at the rate of $10,000 per month. The monies were paid as agreed…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp.California Supreme Court · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2013
- Marenco v. DirecTV LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Corrie v. SolowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Fitness International v. KB Salt Lake IIICalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Majestic Asset Mgmt LLC v. The Colony at Cal. Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.