Legal Opinion
Lake v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1965No. 38633PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchNeider, J.
Buckeye contends that it had the right to refuse the demand of Lake for two reasons: (1) Lake’s written demand does not contain a specific purpose and (2) Lake had the burden of showing that his written request for the names, addresses and number of shares held, of the other shareholders “with whom * * * [he might] desire to communicate regarding the affairs of the corporation,” is a reasonable and proper purpose.
Section 1701.37 (C), Revised Code, states:
“Any shareholder of the corporation, upon written demand stating the specific purpose thereof, shall have the right to examine in person or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sawers v. American Phenolic Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1949
- McCormick v. Statler Hotels Delaware Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1964
- William Coale Development Co. v. KennedyOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- Hanrahan v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Holdsworth v. Goodall-Sanford, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Carlson v. RabkinOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Celina Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Druggists Insurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Pagett v. Westport Precision, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- State Ex Rel. Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- No-Burn, Inc. v. MuratiOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.