William J. Campbell, of the Estate of Lois King Campbell, Deceased, Cross-Appellee v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Company, Cross-Appellant

Tenth Circuit

William J. Campbell, of the Estate of Lois King Campbell, Deceased, Cross-Appellee v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Company, Cross-Appellant

586 F.2d 191, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1978

Docket76-1768-69

StatusPublished

This text of 586 F.2d 191 (William J. Campbell, of the Estate of Lois King Campbell, Deceased, Cross-Appellee v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Company, Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William J. Campbell, of the Estate of Lois King Campbell, Deceased, Cross-Appellee v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Company, Cross-Appellant, 586 F.2d 191, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831 (10th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case has been here before as Campbell v. Vose, 515 F.2d 256 (10th Cir.), and upon remand the trial court has determined the fair market value of the dissenting stockholders’ shares at the critical date pursuant to 18 O.S.1971 § 1.161 a.

The determination by the trial court is supported by the record, and we affirm as to the value of the shares.

We have held this appeal until the Oklahoma state court, in a case arising from the same transaction, decided the issue of pre-judgment interest. We now have the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division 2, State of Oklahoma, in King v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co., 585 P.2d 385. The court there held that the dissenting shareholders were not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court stated that the Business Corporation Act made no provision for such interest, and no other statute covered the claim. We so hold.

The Oklahoma court also decided that the amount of dividends paid should be credited against the value of the shares to be paid. The United States District Court here so provided.

This leaves the issue as to costs recoverable by the shareholders. See 18 O.S. § 1.160 e. The Oklahoma trial court allowed costs in the amount of $3,273.08 incurred in the litigation, and the court of appeals affirmed. It appears that the Oklahoma statute contemplates the recovery of costs incurred by the dissenting shareholders except for attorney fees. The affidavit in the record before us of William J. Campbell shows the costs incurred exclusive of attorney fees to have been $4,765.81. It is ordered that these expenditures be recovered as part of the judgment herein.

The judgment is affirmed as to reasonable market value, the denial of prejudgment interest, and the application of dividends; however, the judgment is reversed with directions to permit the recovery by plaintiffs of the amount of $4,765.81 as additional recovery permitted under the Oklahoma statute.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case has been here before as Campbell v. Vose, 515 F.2d 256 (10th Cir.), and upon remand the trial court has determined the fair market value of the dissenting stockholders’ shares at the critical date pursuant to 18 O.S.1971 § 1.161 a.

The determination by the trial court is supported by the record, and we affirm as to the value of the shares.

We have held this appeal until the Oklahoma state court, in a case arising from the same transaction, decided the issue of pre-judgment interest. We now have the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division 2, State of Oklahoma, in King v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co., 585 P.2d 385. The court there held that the dissenting shareholders were not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court stated that the Business Corporation Act made no provision for such interest, and no other statute covered the claim. We so hold.

The Oklahoma court also decided that the amount of dividends paid should be credited against the value of the shares to be paid. The United States District Court here so provided.

This leaves the issue as to costs recoverable by the shareholders. See 18 O.S. § 1.160 e. The Oklahoma trial court allowed costs in the amount of $3,273.08 incurred in the litigation, and the court of appeals affirmed. It appears that the Oklahoma statute contemplates the recovery of costs incurred by the dissenting shareholders except for attorney fees. The affidavit in the record before us of William J. Campbell shows the costs incurred exclusive of attorney fees to have been $4,765.81. It is ordered that these expenditures be recovered as part of the judgment herein.

The judgment is affirmed as to reasonable market value, the denial of prejudgment interest, and the application of dividends; however, the judgment is reversed with directions to permit the recovery by plaintiffs of the amount of $4,765.81 as additional recovery permitted under the Oklahoma statute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F.2d 191, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-j-campbell-of-the-estate-of-lois-king-campbell-deceased-ca10-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack