Legal Opinion

Endres Floral Co. v. Endres

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1995No. 94-1307PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The court of appeals held, and appellees argue, that because the notice sent by the company to the shareholders informing them of the June 7, 1971 shareholders meeting did not specifically state that one of the purposes of the meeting was to consider the buy/sell agreement, the agreement was void and unenforceable. We disagree.

R.C. 1701.41(A) provides that: “Written notice stating the time, place, and purposes of a meeting of the shareholders shall be given * * (Emphasis added.) However, the requirement that the notice shall specify the precise purpose or purposes of the meeting can be waived…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. ASA Architects, Inc. v. SchlegelOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Reed v. Triton Servs., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Heiser v. Heiser Jesko, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. ASA Architects, Inc. v. SchlegelOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Endres Floral Co. v. EndresOhio Supreme Court · 1995

1 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