Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. Ashkins
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
This case presents the issue of whether a corporation may enforce a bylaw restricting alienation of stock against a nonconsenting stockholder who acquired his stock prior to the enactment of the bylaw. We have concluded that the corporation may enforce such a bylaw. Defendants raise additional issues of waiver and estoppel which, as we point out below, are without merit.
Plaintiff Russo owns 54 per cent of the stock of the Tu-Vu Drive-In Corporation. Defendant Ashkins owns 39 per cent of the stock; a third party owns 7 per cent. All three stockholders acquired their shares when the corporation…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood VillageSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Spencer v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Vannucci v. PedriniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Coast Bank v. MinderhoutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- K & T, INC. v. KoroulisUtah Supreme Court · 1994
- John R. Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc. and Robert F. BaurSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.