Davis v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Second Circuit

Davis v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

478 F.2d 1375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1973

DocketNo. 480, Docket 72-2045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 F.2d 1375 (Davis v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 478 F.2d 1375 (2d Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Davis, as administrator of an estate owning 50 shares of common stock in appellee American Telephone and Telegraph Company, urges that we extend the one man-one vote rule of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) and Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969), to shareholder voting in large, government-regulated corporations. We decline this invitation. Even assuming that appellee’s public character- is sufficient to subject it to Fourteenth Amendment requirements, certainly it does not exercise “normal governmental” authority, and its actions, to the extent they affect stockholders qua stockholders, affect each stockholder in proportion to the number of shares he owns. See Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719, 93 S.Ct. 1224, 35 L.Ed.2d 659 (1973). Therefore, the strict equal protection standard implicit in the phrase “one man, one vote” does not apply. Since the shareholder voting scheme utilized by appellee has a rational basis, see Salyer Land Co., supra, the judgment must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Davis, as administrator of an estate owning 50 shares of common stock in appellee American Telephone and Telegraph Company, urges that we extend the one man-one vote rule of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) and Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969), to shareholder voting in large, government-regulated corporations. We decline this invitation. Even assuming that appellee’s public character- is sufficient to subject it to Fourteenth Amendment requirements, certainly it does not exercise “normal governmental” authority, and its actions, to the extent they affect stockholders qua stockholders, affect each stockholder in proportion to the number of shares he owns. See Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719, 93 S.Ct. 1224, 35 L.Ed.2d 659 (1973). Therefore, the strict equal protection standard implicit in the phrase “one man, one vote” does not apply. Since the shareholder voting scheme utilized by appellee has a rational basis, see Salyer Land Co., supra, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F.2d 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-american-telephone-telegraph-co-ca2-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack