Legal Opinion

Paulek v. Isgar

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 1976No. 75-421PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Victor A. Paulek, commenced this action for himself and all other similarly situated stockholders in the H.H. Ditch Co. (H.H.) to restrain the defendant officers, directors, and shareholders from proceeding to consolidate the Short Line Ditch Co. (Short Line) with H.H. From an adverse judgment in the trial court, plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

At a special meeting of the shareholders of H.H., 56% of the shares represented at the meeting voted to consolidate the two ditch companies under the existing articles of incorporation and bylaws of H.H. At the next annual meeting…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Model Land & Irrigation Co. v. MadsenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1930
  2. Manufacturers' Exhibition Building Co. v. LandayIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Laybourn v. WrapeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
  4. Somers v. AAA Temporary Services, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1972
  5. Magnus v. Magnus Organ Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Harding v. Heritage Health Products Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. EAGLE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASS'N. v. Metropolitan Builders, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Roach v. BynumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
  4. Chateau Village North Condominium Ass'n v. JordanColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Arnold v. Anton Cooperative Ass'nColorado Court of Appeals · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API