Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

Pedro v. Pedro

Minnesota Court of Appeals
489 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.App. 1992)


Facts

Alfred, Carl, and Eugene Pedro were brothers and each owned one-third of The Pedro Companies (TPC). The relationship between Alfred (plaintiff) and the other two brothers (brothers) (defendants) deteriorated around 1987. Alfred found a monetary discrepancy between TPC’s accounting records and its checking account. Alfred convinced the brothers to hire an independent accountant, who found a $140,000 discrepancy, but was unable to fully complete his investigation as the brothers refused to give him access to documents that he requested. Around the same time, the brothers began to interfere in Alfred’s work for TPC, impeding with and undermining his authority. They also hired a private investigator to follow Alfred. The brothers told Alfred that if he did not forget about the discrepancy in the books, the brothers would fire him. In December 1987, the brothers did fire him and told TPC employees that Alfred had had a nervous breakdown, which was untrue. Alfred alleged to have had an expectation of lifetime employment for TPC, as he had been an employee for 45 years and his father had worked at TPC until his death. Even Eugene testified that he himself expected to “always work for the company.” Upon remand from an earlier appeal, the trial court found that the brothers had breached their fiduciary duty to Alfred and awarded Alfred a buyout of his one-third ownership in the company. The court also found that Alfred had an expectation of lifetime employment and awarded him lost wages for wrongful termination, as well as attorney fees. The brothers appealed, arguing that there could be no breach of fiduciary duty because the value of the corporation had not decreased.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Norton, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 119,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 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.