Legal Opinion

Hubbard v. Pape

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 17, 1964No. 9081PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoyle, J.

The issues presented in this trial de novo have been carefully examined and re-examined the light pleadings and the evidence.

1. This court finds, as did the Common Pleas Court, that the petitioners and the defendants Pape, Carroll and Luegering, and one Paul Ashcraft, as the original stockholders and employees of the Lackner Custom Sign Service Company, agreed that no one of the stockholders could sell or dispose of his stock without first offering it for sale to the corporation at its current book value; and that, if the corporation elected not to acquire the stock, it should be offered to…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. Frank Lerner & Associates, Inc. v. VassyOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Prodan v. HemeyerOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Weidle Corp. v. Leist (In Re Leist)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2008
  5. Kelegian v. MgrdichianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

4 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