Legal Opinion

Young v. Hoagland

California Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 13794PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Up to November 30, 1923, the defendants, Hoagland, Prentice and Wilde, were, and for some years prior thereto had been, members of the board of five directors of the Humboldt Oil Company, a California corporation. Said board of directors in the preceding month of October had levied an assessment on the capital stock of said company designated as assessment No. 3. On said thirtieth day of November a meeting of the stockholders was held and said board of directors was removed and a new board of directors was elected to replace the members of the board removed. On the same day the new board of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brumagim v. TillinghastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Hillwig v. BoyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Humboldt Oil Co. v. HoaglandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Smith v. Prime Cable of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1995
  2. Richard Douglas Furnish and Emilie Furnish Funk v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
  3. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. Flynn v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

24 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