8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cal-American Income Property Fund VII v. Brown Development Corp.green2 sentences2001(See Cal-American Income Property Fund VII v. Brown Development Corp. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 268, 273, fn. 3 , 187 Cal.Rptr. 703 [speaking of the need for oral argument "in those complex law and motion cases where the decision has an immediate and dramatic impact upon the parties"]; Beckner, More Than A Paper Shuffle (1998) 25 No. 1 Litigation 57, 59 ["Contrary to decades of administrative law doctrine, in the courts in California a `hearing' happens only when real people talk and listen to each other.... 2001(See Cal-American Income Property Fund VII v. Brown Development Corp. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 268, 273, fn. 3 , 187 Cal.Rptr. 703 [speaking of the need for oral argument "in those complex law and motion cases where the decision has an immediate and dramatic impact upon the parties"]; Beckner, More Than A Paper Shuffle (1998) 25 No. 1 Litigation 57, 59 ["Contrary to decades of administrative law doctrine, in the courts in California a `hearing' happens only when real people talk and listen to each other.... | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Ass'ngreen2 sentences2001Even if the attorney-client privilege rested with the corporation alone, plaintiffs would not have been entitled to privileged information simply because they brought a derivative action. ( McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 385 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ["California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action"]; see also Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 639, 644 , 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 ["There is no statutory exception for shareholders, even for closely held en 2001Even if the attorney-client privilege rested with the corporation alone, plaintiffs would not have been entitled to privileged information simply because they brought a derivative action. ( McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 385 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ["California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action"]; see also Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 639, 644 , 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 ["There is no statutory exception for shareholders, even for closely held en | 2 | 2 |
Hoiles v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2001Even if the attorney-client privilege rested with the corporation alone, plaintiffs would not have been entitled to privileged information simply because they brought a derivative action. ( McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 385 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ["California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action"]; see also Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 639, 644 , 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 ["There is no statutory exception for shareholders, even for closely held en 2001Even if the attorney-client privilege rested with the corporation alone, plaintiffs would not have been entitled to privileged information simply because they brought a derivative action. ( McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 385 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ["California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action"]; see also Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 639, 644 , 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 ["There is no statutory exception for shareholders, even for closely held en | 1 | 4 |
McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011It effectively places the defendant attorney in the untenable position of having to ‘preserve the attorney client privilege (the client having done nothing to waive the privilege) while trying to show that his representation of the client was not negligent.’ ” ( McDermott, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 383-384.) McDermott adds: “California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action. [Citations.] We simply cannot conceive how an attorney is to mount a defense in a shareholder derivative action alleging a breach of duty t 2011It effectively places the defendant attorney in the untenable position of having to ‘preserve the attorney client privilege (the client having done nothing to waive the privilege) while trying to show that his representation of the client was not negligent.’ ” ( McDermott, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 383-384.) McDermott adds: “California courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the attorney-client privilege, even in a derivative action. [Citations.] We simply cannot conceive how an attorney is to mount a defense in a shareholder derivative action alleging a breach of duty t | 1 | 3 |
Schuster v. Gardnergreen1 sentence2021(Schuster v. Gardner (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 305, 312 (Schuster).) The corporation itself must bring such an action or, in some circumstances, the shareholders may sue on the corporation’s behalf. | 1 | 1 |
National Football League Properties, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2000(National Football League Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 107; Hoiles v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1198 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 111 ].) We simply cannot conceive how an attorney is to mount a defense in a shareholder derivative action alleging a breach of duty to the corporate client, where, by the very nature of such an action, the attorney is foreclosed, in the absence of any waiver by the corporation, from disclosing the very communications which are alleged to constitute a breach of that duty. | 1 | 1 |
Goldstein v. Leesgreen2 sentences1998Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 732 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 ]; Hoiles, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198 .) Although shareholders have some rights to corporate information which are not enjoyed by the general public, “shareholder status does not in and of itself entitle an individual to unfettered access to corporate confidences and secrets.” (Goldstein v. Lees (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 614, 621 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) 4 In California, the appellate courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the statutory attorney-client privilege accorded to corpo 1998Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 732 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 ]; Hoiles, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198 .) Although shareholders have some rights to corporate information which are not enjoyed by the general public, “shareholder status does not in and of itself entitle an individual to unfettered access to corporate confidences and secrets.” (Goldstein v. Lees (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 614, 621 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) 4 In California, the appellate courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the statutory attorney-client privilege accorded to corpo | 1 | 1 |
D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1998Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 732 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 ]; Hoiles, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198 .) Although shareholders have some rights to corporate information which are not enjoyed by the general public, “shareholder status does not in and of itself entitle an individual to unfettered access to corporate confidences and secrets.” (Goldstein v. Lees (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 614, 621 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) 4 In California, the appellate courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the statutory attorney-client privilege accorded to corpo 1998Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 732 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 ]; Hoiles, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198 .) Although shareholders have some rights to corporate information which are not enjoyed by the general public, “shareholder status does not in and of itself entitle an individual to unfettered access to corporate confidences and secrets.” (Goldstein v. Lees (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 614, 621 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) 4 In California, the appellate courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the statutory attorney-client privilege accorded to corpo | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.green2 sentences1975F. Ahmanson & Co., 1 Cal.3d 93, 107 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 460 P.2d 464 ], the Supreme Court made clear that the individual wrong suffered by the shareholder under the exception described in Shaw “need not be unique to that plaintiff. 1975F. Ahmanson & Co., 1 Cal.3d 93, 107 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 460 P.2d 464 ], the Supreme Court made clear that the individual wrong suffered by the shareholder under the exception described in Shaw “need not be unique to that plaintiff. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patrick v. Alacer Corp.
green
1 sentence2022In Patrick, the trial court sustained a demurrer in part because the plaintiff failed to allege that she had standing to bring a shareholder claim. ( Patrick, supra, at p. 1015 .) The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which she asserted a new declaratory relief claim. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Shirvanian v. DeFrates
green
1 sentence2021(Id. at pp. 385—386.) In concluding the suit was derivative, the court employed a rule formulated by the Texas Court of Appeals which provided that “the most relevant question [in determining the nature of a shareholder claim based on misrepresentation] is whether the stockholder can prevail without showing … a corresponding injury to the corporation.” (Id. at p. 386, quoting Shirvanian v. DeFrates (Tex. App. 2004) 161 S.W.3d 102, 110 .) The suit is derivative in nature when the alleged misrepresentations are “based on mismanagement of the corporation’s assets.” (Ibid.) Applying this rule here | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Beard v. Ames
green
2 sentences1998(See, e.g., Beard v. Ames (1983) 96 A.D.2d 119 [ 468 N.Y.S.2d 253, 255 ]; Garner v. Wolfinbarger, supra, 430 F.2d at pp. 1103-1104.) However, as we have previously discussed, California courts cannot expand upon the statutory privileges set forth in the Evidence Code by creating a shareholder exception to corporate attorney-client privilege, or adopt the federal Garner rule permitting shareholder inspection upon a showing of good cause. 1998(See, e.g., Beard v. Ames (1983) 96 A.D.2d 119 [ 468 N.Y.S.2d 253, 255 ]; Garner v. Wolfinbarger, supra, 430 F.2d at pp. 1103-1104.) However, as we have previously discussed, California courts cannot expand upon the statutory privileges set forth in the Evidence Code by creating a shareholder exception to corporate attorney-client privilege, or adopt the federal Garner rule permitting shareholder inspection upon a showing of good cause. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.