Tupper v. Kroc
Nevada Supreme Court
494 P.2d 1275 (1972)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Lloyd Tupper (defendant) was the general partner in three limited partnerships with his limited partner, Ray Kroc (plaintiff). Kroc sued Tupper for failing to pay Tupper’s share of the partnerships’ obligations. Pending the suit’s outcome, the trial court placed the partnerships in receivership. Kroc obtained a $55,000 judgment against Tupper. To enforce the judgment, Kroc applied for, and the trial court entered, a charging order against Tupper’s interest in the partnerships. In doing so, both Kroc and the trial court followed proper Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) procedure. At the ensuing judicial sale, Kroc, the sole bidder, bought out Tupper’s partnership interest for $2,500. Tupper failed to convince the trial court that this price was inadequate. In light of Kroc’s purchase and at Kroc’s request, the trial court discharged the partnerships’ receiver. However, Kroc neither requested nor did the court order dissolution of the partnerships. On appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, Tupper contended that (1) the judicial sale price was inadequate, (2) the sale improperly assigned Tupper’s partnership interest in contravention of partnership agreements barring such assignments, and (3) the receivership was improperly terminated because Tupper retained an equity interest in the partnerships’ business and assets.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Batjer, 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.
