Hartman v. Hollingsworth
California Court of Appeal
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
- Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Stubbs v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Dandini v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
3Cited by6 opinions
- Penasquitos, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Havlicek v. Coast-To-Coast Analytical Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Wolf v. CDS DEVCOCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Saline v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.