Did the trial court err in determining that Landstrom had been oppressed?
[¶36] The trial court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the jury, in its advisory verdict, found that the Defendants had oppressed Landstrom. As equitable relief, the trial court ordered Devereaux and Drew, as the remaining shareholders, to purchase Landstrom’s stock in BHJMC for $8.4 million. Devereaux and Drew appeal. Landstrom, apparently satisfied with the outcome, did not file a cross appeal on this issue. [¶37] It is settled law that we review a trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Jasper v. Smith, 540 NW2d 399, 401 (SD 1995) (citing Cordell v. Codington County, 526 NW2d 115, 116 (SD 1994)). Under this standard, we will not disturb the court’s findings unless we are firmly and definitely convinced, after a review of the entire evidence, a mistake has been made. Id. We review a trial court’s conclusions of law under a de novo standard. Id. Under a de novo review, we give no deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law. Id. Wh
Related Questions
- Did the trial court err by restricting Husband from traveling outside of the United States with the children?
- Did Trial Court Err by Refusing to Instruct Jury on Loss of Chance Theory in Medical Malpractice Case?
- Did the trial court reversibly err by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law?
