TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mac R. Perlman, Sylvia Perlman, and Alan J. Pearlman v. Permonite Manufacturing Co., and Midland Enterprises, Inc.

Mac R. PERLMAN, Sylvia Perlman, and Alan J. Pearlman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PERMONITE MANUFACTURING CO., and Midland Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

Perlman v. Permonite Mfg. Co., 734 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 19, 1984
Docket
No. 83-2429
Judges
Cummings, Bauer, Fairchild
Citations
734 F.2d 1283

Opinion — Bauer

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Effective July 31, 1979, Midland Enterprises Inc., an Indiana corporation, and its wholly-owned subsidiary Enna Enterprises Inc., an Illinois corporation, merged into Permonite Manufacturing Company, an Illinois corporation. Under the merger agreement, Midland shares were converted into Permonite shares. The appellants collectively held forty-eight shares of the total 145 issued and outstanding shares of Midland on July 31. The appellants chose not to participate in the merger and dissented from it. On August 1, 1979, Permonite sent a letter to each of the dissenting shareholders and offered to purchase their shares of Midland stock for $3,435.00 per share. The appellants rejected this offer and commenced this action pursuant to Indiana Code § 23-1-5-7 (Burns 1984), seeking judicial appraisal of the fair market value of their shares. Jurisdiction in the district court was based upon diversity of citizenship, and the dissenting shareholders allegation that the shares were worth in excess of ten thousand dollars. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the value of the forty-eight shares at the time of the July 31 merger was $2,849.45 per share. The appellants appeal this determination and allege various errors in the district court’s analysis.

The district court’s opinion is published at 568 F.Supp. 222 (N.D.Ind.1983). The court carefully analyzed each of the dissenting shareholders’ claims and correctly applied the law. We agree with each of these determinations. Insofar as the district court decision constitutes findings of fact, they are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment and adopt its opinion as the opinion of this court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1986: 11988: 11992: 11993: 11994: 11998: 11999: 22002: 12003: 119862026peak 1999 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Harper157 B.R. 858 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1993)
  2. Rigel Corp. v. Cutchall511 N.W.2d 519 (Neb. 1994)
  3. Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc.63 P.3d 353 (Colo. 2003)
  4. Walter S. Cheesman Realty Co. v. Moore770 P.2d 1308 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988)
  5. MT Properties, Inc. v. CMC Real Estate Corp.481 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
  6. Lawson Mardon Wheaton, Inc. v. Smith716 A.2d 550 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)

Most recent

  1. Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc.63 P.3d 353 (Colo. 2003)
  2. Offenbecher v. Baron Services, Inc.874 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)
  3. Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc.74 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mo. 1999)
  4. HMO-W INC. v. SSM Health Care System598 N.W.2d 577 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999)
  5. Lawson Mardon Wheaton, Inc. v. Smith716 A.2d 550 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)
  6. Rigel Corp. v. Cutchall511 N.W.2d 519 (Neb. 1994)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Perlman v. Permonite Mfg. Co., 568 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Ind. 1983) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list