Legal Opinion
Harris v. Westly
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 3, 2004No. B160741PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOLAND, J.
SUMMARY
The notice provisions of the Unclaimed Property Law do not require the Controller to provide notice to apparent owners of escheated stock before the Controller sells the stock. Sale of escheated stock without notice to the owners does not violate the due process provisions of the federal or state Constitutions.
FACTUAL, PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
Gene Harris, Peggy Lee Dominguez, Annette Schoon, Russ Garcia and Julianne Jackson (collectively, Harris) worked for GTE Corporation during the 1970’s and 1980’s. In June 2000, GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to create…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Standard Oil Co. v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Douglas Aircraft Co. v. CranstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Bank of America v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
3Cited by9 opinions
- Chris Lusby Taylor Nancy A. Pepple-Gonsalves v. Steve Westly, in His Capacity as Controller of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Morris v. ChiangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Azure Ltd. v. I-Flow Corp.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Harris v. Verizon CommunicationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Harris v. Verizon CommunicationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.