Legal Opinion

APSB BANCORP v. Thornton Grant

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 11, 1994No. B052638PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HASTINGS, J.

— In this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and hold that appellant is not eligible for indemnification pursuant to Corporations Code section 317, subdivision (d). In so holding, we determine that section 317 allows indemnification for corporate “agents” sued for carrying out activities on behalf of a corporation within the common law meaning of agency, but not where the acts giving rise to the underlying suit arose out of retention of an independent contractor performing business for its own benefit, even though the activities may directly benefit the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
  3. California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Malloy v. FongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. City of Los Angeles v. Meyers Brothers Parking System, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1975

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. PMC, Inc. v. KadishaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  2. Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. Jackson v. AEG Live, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Channel Lumber Co., Inc. v. Porter SimonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. Williams v. City of BelvedereCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API