Corporations Keyed to Hamilton
Davis v. Sheerin
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In May of 1985, Appellee brought suit as an individual, and as a shareholder on behalf of the corporation against Appellants based on allegations of Appellants’ oppressive conduct toward Appellee as a minority shareholder and their breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Appellee and the corporation. The corporation was incorporated by William, a 55 percent stockholder, and Appellee, in 1955. Appellee and Appellants served as directors and officers of the corporation, with William serving as president. Appellee was not employed by the corporation. In 1985, Appellants denied Appellee’s right to inspect the corporate books, unless Appellee produced his stock certificate. Appellants claimed Appellee gifted his 45 percent interest in the corporation to them in the late 1960’s. The trial court found that there was a conspiracy to deprive Appellee of his stock and that Appellants acted oppressively against Appellee. It ordered a “buy out” of Appellee’s 45 percent stock share for $550,000. Appellants appeal claiming (1) Texas law does not allow a “buy out” as a remedy, and (2) even if such a remedy was available, the trial court’s finding of “oppressive conduct” does not warrant application of a buy out.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.