Long Park, Inc. v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co.

unknown appellate court · Corporations

Corporationsaffirmedcostsdisbursementsappellate procedurecorporations

Facts

The majority opinion provides no factual background. It identifies only that there were orders under review and that a respondent was awarded $20 costs and disbursements. No underlying corporate dispute or material facts are stated in the opinion text provided. Because the opinion contains no factual recitation, no further facts can be drawn from it.

Issue

Whether the orders under review should be affirmed on appeal.

Rule

When an appellate court states only that the orders are affirmed, the only rule ascertainable from the opinion is that the lower court's orders stand as entered, with any costs and disbursements awarded as stated.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maple Harbor Studios, a closely held corporation in Cleveland, appealed two trial-court orders in a dispute with Nora Velez, a shareholder. The appellate court's entire opinion stated: "Orders affirmed, with costs to respondent."

What is the narrowest proposition that can be confidently derived from the appellate opinion?

Explanation. Because the opinion states only that the orders are affirmed, with costs to the respondent, the only reliable holding is the procedural disposition itself: the orders stand and costs are awarded as stated. No broader substantive corporate rule can be extracted from such a summary affirmance. (Derived from Long Park, Inc. v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co. (n.d.).)