Legal Opinion

Thibaut v. Thibaut

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1986No. CA 85 1081PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

COLE, Judge.

There are two questions presented by this appeal. The initial question is whether a proxy containing alleged typographical errors as to the date of the proxy’s execution and use may be deemed “regular on its face ...” as required by La.R.S. 12:75 C(4). The additional question is whether a proxy issued by an owner in indivisión of two shares of stock, purporting to allow the proxy holder to vote two-thirds of a share, allows the proxy holder to vote the entire two shares, pursuant to La.R.S. 12:75 C(5).

We agree with the trial court’s conclusions the proxy with typographical errors…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hebert v. StansburyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. Bierschwale v. OakesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
  3. Hebert v. StansburySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1971

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Thibaut v. ThibautSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API