Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dines v. Harris

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 30, 1930No. 12,307Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Butler

I concur in the reversal of the judgment in part.

1. Sections 2267 and 2268, C. L., have come down to us from early days through several statutory compilations. The former section gives to stockholders of all *38corporations, ‘ ‘ except railroad and telegraph companies, ’ ’ the right to inspect and to copy or make extracts from all corporate hooks, accounts and papers. The latter gives to stockholders and creditors of all corporations, “except railroad and telegraph corporations, and industrial corporations having a paid up capital of $20,-000,000 and maintaining a stock transfer agency in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Mortgage Co. v. RosenbaumOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. People Ex Rel. Roberg v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929
  3. Jameson v. HanawaltSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  4. Wire v. FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  5. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API