Tripp v. Pay 'N Pak Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that an Oregon stat- ute regulating the issuance of stock options did not apply to Washington corporation
• explaining that an Oregon statute regulating the issuance of stock options did not apply to Washington corporation
• noting that ORS 78.3190 was intended as an “express correlation with the statute of frauds of the sales portion of the Uniform Commercial Code,” ORS 72.2010
• defendant's corporate minutes, signed by defendant, recited prior oral agreement and confirmed price and quantity terms
• defendant’s corporate minutes, signed by defendant, recited prior oral agreement and confirmed price and quantity terms
• so stating under statute of frauds applicable to the sale of investment securities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Conaway v. 20th Century Corp.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-09-22· cited 28×
• GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1996-04-11· cited 20×
• Thomas v. Prewitt
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1978-02-15· cited 16×
• GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-07-18· cited 12×
• McCubbin Seed Farm, Inc. v. Tri-Mor Sales, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1977-08-31· cited 12×
• Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2015-12-10· cited 5×
• Nelson v. Brostoff
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1984-10-31· cited 4×
• Conaway v. 20th Century Corp.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-07-12· cited 4×
• Khoshnou v. PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON ETC.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-05-19· cited 2×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. v. Consolidated Pipe Co. of America, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1959-07-24· cited 45×