Legal Opinion
Keough v. Kittleman
Washington Supreme Court
Decided November 7, 1968No. 40316PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
Quaere: Where depositors in a savings and loan association have given voting proxies to the board of directors, 1 can a majority of the board determine how the proxies are to be exercised, or must the members of the board concur unanimously in the exercise of the proxies?
Answer: Absent clear evidence of an intention to the contrary, a majority of the board of directors can determine how the proxies running to the board may be voted.
Reason: Contrary action could result in one dissident director disfranchising those giving such proxies and make it possible, in many instances, for a small…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- Dorsey v. StrandWashington Supreme Court · 1944
- Hexter v. Columbia Baking Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1929
- Unterberg v. . ElderNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Hauth v. Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dodd v. BannisterWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- The First National Bank of Beaver, Oklahoma v. Mac J. Hough and Leona B. HoughCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Judy Davis, as Next Friend of Eloise Gwinn, an Incapacitated Person v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2011