Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court · 1993 · Corporations

315 Or. 308 (1993)

Updated July 8, 2026

Corporationsreconsiderationdissentappraisal exclusivityshareholder claims

Facts

The opinion provides almost no underlying facts about the corporate dispute. Justice Unis refers to his earlier separate opinion in Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc., 314 Or 576, 591, 841 P2d 1183 (1992). He also cites a law review note discussing exclusivity of appraisal and the possible extinguishment of shareholder claims. The cited note was not published when his earlier separate opinion was issued.

Issue

Whether the petition for reconsideration should be allowed. The dissent also highlights scholarship concerning appraisal exclusivity and shareholder claims as relevant to reconsideration.

Rule

This dissenting opinion does not state a black-letter rule or announce a doctrinal test. It only expresses the view that reconsideration should be allowed and notes potentially relevant scholarship.

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.

The Supreme Court of Franklin issued a decision in a shareholder merger dispute involving Maya Ortiz and Rivergate Analytics, Inc. Two weeks later, Justice Nolan, who had previously written a separate opinion, points to a newly published law review note on appraisal exclusivity that did not exist when his separate opinion was issued.

Based solely on the governing doctrine reflected in the opinion, which response is most consistent with Justice Nolan's stated position?

Explanation. The opinion states only that reconsideration should be allowed where the justice wished to call attention to a law review note that was not published when his earlier separate opinion issued. It does not require binding authority, factual error, or a categorical bar on scholarship. (Derived from Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc. (n.d.).)