Legal Opinion

Rosenfeld v. Zimmer

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 16, 1953No. Civ. 19390PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendant after trial before the court without a jury in a stockholders’ derivative action, plaintiffs appeal.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants (respondents) and pursuant to the rules set forth in Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214, 216 [146 P.2d 424], the essential facts are:

Defendant Zimmer had an option to buy a parcel of real property in the city of Pasadena. This option was turned over to defendant Euclid Properties, Inc. (hereinafter called Euclid) at a valuation of $120,000. One hundred shares of stock of Euclid were issued.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. IsenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. DeGarmo v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Primeau v. GranfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
  5. Mitchell v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gaudiosi v. MellonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
  2. Moss Estate Co. v. AdlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Patient Care Services, S.C. v. SegalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  4. Gaillard v. Natomas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Rankin v. Frebank Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975

3 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