Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harris v. Verizon Communications

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 19, 2006No. B179370Published

1Dissent

*580MALLANO, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

This case involves the duties of a corporation, defendant GTE Corporation, to plaintiffs, minority shareholders of GTE, before the minority shareholders’ GTE stock was delivered to the State of California under California’s Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) (Code Civ. Proc., § 1500 et seq.).1 The trial court sustained GTE’s demurrer on the ground that GTE was afforded immunity under the UPL. But, given the claims asserted in the second amended complaint (complaint), the UPL’s immunity provisions cannot reasonably be interpreted to apply to the circumstances here,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. MendozaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. 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
  3. Bank of America v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Fong v. WestlyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. Brennfleck v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

4 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