RUSSELL J. HEBERT AND PHILIP J. LEVINE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROYAL ENTERPRISES OF PENSACOLA, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint seeking corporate dissolution due to insufficient evidence.
Plaintiffs sought to dissolve Royal Enterprises of Pensacola, Inc. The trial court found they failed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equity Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment dismissing appeliants-plaintiffs’ complaint against appellees which sought to dissolve the corporation known as Royal Enterprises of Pensacola, Inc.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, specifically found, after hearing argument of counsel and considering the written briefs of the parties, that plaintiffs failed by a fair preponderance of the evidence to establish their cause of action against appellees to have the above-named corporation dissolved either under the provisions of § 608.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., or under any principle of equity. We agree.
The record and transcript herein clearly supports the trial court’s conclusions that said § 608.28 is inapplicable because the total stock voting power was not evenly divided into two independent ownerships or interests. Appellee-Miller owned 51% of the voting stock. The record further supports the finding that plaintiffs failed to show any fraud or mismanagement on the part of the appellees.
Our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and oral argument leads us to conclude that appellants have failed to demonstrate that the judgment appealed herein is erroneous. Said judgment is therefore affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur. *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alberto Bartlett et ux. v. George E. Caines et ux., 363 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…lders, Inc. v. Dukes, 157 Fla. 642, 26 So. 2d 802 (1946); News-Journal Corp. v. Gore, 147 Fla. 217, 2 So. 2d 741 (1941); Mills Development Corp. v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533 (1936); Hebert v. Royal Enterprises of Pensacola, Inc., 259 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Keck v. Schumacher, 198 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The final judgment under review is hereby reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment for the defendants herein. Reversed and rem…