Legal Opinion
Harris v. Verizon Communications
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 19, 2006No. B179370PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL, J.
The unclaimed property law (the UPL, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1500-1582) protects unknown property owners by reuniting them with their property and giving the state, rather than the holders of the unclaimed property, the benefit of its use until it is claimed.1 {Harris v. Westly (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 214, 219 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343].) To these ends, stock held by a corporation escheats to the State of California if the shareholder (owner) has not communicated with the corporation for more than three years and if the owner’s whereabouts are unknown, at which point the corporation must…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Douglas Aircraft Co. v. CranstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Chris Lusby Taylor Nancy A. Pepple-Gonsalves v. Steve Westly, in His Capacity as Controller of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Storch v. SilvermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Azure Ltd. v. I-Flow Corp.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Azure Limited v. I-Flow Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Azure Limited v. I-Flow Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Harris v. Verizon CommunicationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006