Legal Opinion
Wiedersum v. Transvision Electronics, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 17, 1964PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell D. Schweitzer, J.
The petitioners are dissenting stockholders and seek relief under sections 91 and 21 of the Stock Corporation Law (now Business Corporation Law, §§ 623, 910, eff. Sept. 1,1963, the pertinent parts of which have retained the substance of their predecessor sections) to have their stock appraised.
A reading of the Stock Corporation Law and of the papers submitted herein reveals that the dissenting stockholders should have complied with the following three requirements of the Stock Corporation Law to warrant appraisal and payment by the corporation for their stock:
1. Pursuant to subdivision 7 of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Anderson v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Matter of Marcus (Macy Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Matter of McKinney (Bush Term. Bldgs. Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1954
- In re KuninNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
3Cited by5 opinions
- Greco v. Tampa Wholesale Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- In Re Determination Pursuant to Chapter 31, Article 1, Sections 122 & 123 of the Code of West Virginia of 1931, Amended, of Fair Value of Shares of Bank of RipleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1990
- Pritchard v. MeadCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
- Davis v. Adirondack Industries, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1969
- Parrillo v. R.I.S.A.T.Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2007