Connection lost
Server error
HOLLIS v. HILL Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A 50% shareholder in a closely held Nevada corporation sued the other 50% shareholder for oppression. The court found a breach of fiduciary duty and ordered a buyout, establishing principles for such duties in Nevada close corporations.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that, under Nevada law (as predicted by the Fifth Circuit), shareholders in a close corporation owe each other fiduciary duties akin to partners, and oppressive conduct can warrant a court-ordered buyout.
HOLLIS v. HILL Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
James Hollis and Dan Hill co-founded FFUSA, a Nevada corporation, each owning 50% and serving as directors and officers. FFUSA initially prospered. In late 1997, Hill began complaining about Hollis’s workload, stopped Hollis’s salary, and rejected Hollis’s proposals to resolve disputes. Hill unilaterally moved FFUSA’s annuity business into his sole proprietorship (though later assigned profits back and shared a fee with Hollis). Hill also restricted Hollis’s access to financial information. Tensions resurfaced after a brief negotiated agreement. Hill then drastically reduced Hollis’s salary to zero, terminated his wife’s employment, canceled Hollis’s office lease and phone, and eliminated his benefits, citing cost-cutting needs due to anticipated business decline. Hollis sued for shareholder oppression. The district court found Hill’s conduct oppressive, particularly citing a later capital call and Hollis’s termination as vice-president, and ordered Hill to buy Hollis’s shares, valuing them as of February 28, 1998, when it found oppression began.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the controlling shareholder in a two-shareholder Nevada corporation breach a fiduciary duty owed to the other shareholder through actions effectively freezing him out of the business, and if so, is a court-ordered buyout at a retroactively determined valuation an appropriate remedy?
Yes, Hill breached his fiduciary duty to Hollis. The court affirmed the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the controlling shareholder in a two-shareholder Nevada corporation breach a fiduciary duty owed to the other shareholder through actions effectively freezing him out of the business, and if so, is a court-ordered buyout at a retroactively determined valuation an appropriate remedy?
Conclusion
This case is significant for applying principles of heightened fiduciary duty from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur
Legal Rule
Shareholders in a closely held corporation, particularly one resembling a de facto Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute iru
Legal Analysis
The Fifth Circuit, predicting Nevada law, found that a fiduciary duty existed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Shareholders in a closely held Nevada corporation owe each other partnership-like