Legal Opinion

Matthew G. Norton Co. v. Smyth

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 5, 2002No. 47795-1-IPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.

Under Washington’s Business Corporation Act, shareholders are entitled to dissent from certain proposed corporate actions, including mergers, and demand that the corporation pay “fair value” for the shares if the proposed action is effectuated. In a case of first impression in Washington, the trial court ruled as a matter of law that Matthew G. Norton Company could not apply a lack of marketability discount and a discount for future taxation of embedded capital gains in determining “fair value” of the dissenters’ shares in the companies that merged. Insofar as the trial court’s ruling was…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1983
  2. Cavalier Oil Corp. v. HarnettSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  3. Tri-Continental Corporation v. BattyeSupreme Court of Delaware · 1950
  4. Balsamides v. Protameen Chemicals, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1999
  5. Voeller v. Neilston Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2003
  2. Brown v. Arp and Hammond Hardware CompanyWyoming Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Boettcher v. IMC Mortg. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  4. Matthew G. Norton Co. v. SmythCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhardCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API