Ballard v. Roberson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Subject to satisfying the conditions of subsections (c) and (d), a shareholder of a statutory close corporation may petition the circuit court for any of the relief described in [sjection 33-18-410, 33-18-420, or 33-18-430 if: (1) the directors or those in control of the corporation have acted, are acting, or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, fraudulent, or unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner, whether in his capacity as shareholder, director, or officer of the corporation; ... or (3) there exist grounds for judicial dissolution of the corporation under [sjection 33-14-300[ 7 j. (b) A shareholder must commence a proceeding under subsection (a) in the circuit court of the county where the corporation’s principal office or, if none in this State, its registered office is located. The jurisdiction of the court in which the proceeding is commenced is plenary and exclusive. (c) If a shareholder has agreed in writing to pursue a nonjudicial remedy to resolve disputed matters, he may not commence a proceeding under this section with respect to the matters until he has exhausted the nonjudicial remedy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mason v. Mason

2. “In Kiriakides v. Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc., 343 S.C. 587 , 541 S.E.2d 257 (2001), [the supreme court] established how a court should determine whether majority shareholders have acted oppressively within the meaning of section 33-14-300.... In establishing the proper consider ations for finding oppression, [the court] observed that the terms oppressive and unfairly prejudicial are elastic terms whose meaning varies with the circumstances presented in a particular case. [The court] also noted this was a fact-sensitive review and should therefore be determined through a case-by-case analysis, supplemented by various factors which may be indicative of oppressive behavior. Although [the court] declined to set out specific factors in Kiriakides , [it] observed several commonly considered ones including: eliminating minority shareholders from directorate and excluding them from employment[,] ... failure to enforce contracts for the benefit of the corporation^ and] withholding information from minority shareholders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mason v. Mason

3. “illegal or fraudulent conduct is not required under section 38 — 14—300(2)(ii), and we agree with the circuit court that the evidence in the record shows oppression by the majority in this instance ... We find the record evinces a clear intent by Appellants to “freeze-out” Ballard and exclude him from involvement with Warpath and from the benefits of ownership ... We therefore affirm the circuit court’s finding of oppression and its requirement that Appellants purchase Ballard’s stock at fair market value.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes)