Legal Opinion

Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 3, 1968No. Civ. 24234PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRattigan, J.

The principal elements of this appeal are the duty of a stock broker, owed to his customers who purchase the securities of a corporation, to disclose to them material facts known to him concerning the corporation; the duty of a director of the corporation, owed to it, not to disclose the same facts if he acquired knowledge of them as a director; and the consequences which may arise when the broker and the director are the same person.

Appellant Shearson, Hammill & Go. (hereinafter “Shear-son”) is a copartnership engaged in the stock brokerage business. At relevant times, appellant Dunbar was a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Krause v. ApodacaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Walsh v. Hooker & FayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Massei v. LettunichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Blackburn v. WitterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
  4. G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. Blickman Turkus v. Mf Downtown SunnyvaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

28 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