Rosenfeld v. Zimmer
California Court of Appeal
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
- Kennedy v. IsenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- DeGarmo v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Primeau v. GranfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- Mitchell v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gaudiosi v. MellonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Moss Estate Co. v. AdlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Patient Care Services, S.C. v. SegalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- Gaillard v. Natomas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Rankin v. Frebank Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.