Brooke v. Mt. Hood Meadows, Oreg., Ltd.
Oregon Court of Appeals
725 P.2d 925, 81 Or. App. 387 (1986)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
Mt. Hood Meadows, Oreg., Ltd. (Mt. Hood) (defendant) was a limited partnership established for the construction and operation of a winter-sports development in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Mt. Hood’s general partner, which was Mt. Hood Meadows Development Corp. (Meadows), and the board of directors voted to distribute only 50 percent of the limited partners’ taxable profits, with the remainder reinvested in the business. The partnership agreement provided that all management decisions were to be made by Meadows and that the limited partners had no right to take part in the control of the business. Three limited partners (plaintiffs) brought suit against Mt. Hood and Meadows for the undistributed profits. After a trial on the merits, the trial court held that Meadows had no authority to retain profits and ordered Meadows to distribute annually to all limited partners cash equal to the allocated profits. The trial court denied Mt. Hood and Meadows’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court awarded judgment to the three limited partners. Mt. Hood and Meadows appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buttler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.