Legal Opinion

Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. Ashkins

California Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1964No. L. A. No. 26896PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood VillageSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Spencer v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Vannucci v. PedriniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Coast Bank v. MinderhoutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  4. K & T, INC. v. KoroulisUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API