Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Hollingsworth

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 1, 1967No. Civ. 31033PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLillie, J.

This is an appeal from part of a judgment in a mandamus proceeding which orders the various respondents below to allow petitioner Robert E. Hartman, as a director of a corporation at the time of its dissolution, to inspect the corporate books and records in their possession. A similar right was denied the remaining petitioner, Chester R. Hartman, it being found that he was not a director at the time in question.

In issue is the construction to be given section 3004. Corporations Code, which provides in pertinent part that1 ‘ Every director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Stubbs v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Dandini v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Penasquitos, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Havlicek v. Coast-To-Coast Analytical Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Wolf v. CDS DEVCOCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Saline v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009

1 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