Obert v. Environmental Research & Development Corp.
Washington Court of Appeals
752 P.2d 924 (1988)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Environmental Research & Development Corporation (ERADCO) (defendant) was the general partner of Campus Park Associates, a real-estate limited partnership with 28 limited partners (plaintiffs). The partnership agreement permitted the limited partners to remove the general partner and elect a successor with a majority vote of 66 percent. After several years without progress in the real-estate venture, 74.4 percent of the limited partners of Campus Park voted to remove ERADCO as general partner and to replace it with Pace Corporation. The limited partners filed suit, alleging misconduct and breaches of fiduciary duties by ERADCO. The limited partners sought to compel ERADCO to turn over control of the finances of Campus Park and to end all contractual liabilities to ERADCO under the partnership agreement. ERADCO argued that after its removal as general partner, dissolution was triggered because the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (RULPA) supersedes the partnership agreement and requires unanimous approval of a successor general partner in order for the limited partnership to continue. The lower court found in favor of the limited partners and permitted them to continue the partnership with Pace Corporation as the substitute general partner. ERADCO appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pekelis, J.)
Dissent (Ringold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.