People v. Estate of Eugene A. Hoffman, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• commenting that “[California] courts routinely apply the tort [of conversion] to intangibles without inquiring whether they are merged in a document”
• recognizing conversion of shares because they are “a species of personal property,” not because they are tangible
• commenting that “[California] courts routinely apply the tort [of conversion] to intangibles without inquiring whether they are merged in a document”
• “[I]f [conversion] is maintainable for the [stock] certificate, there is no valid reason why [conversion] is not also maintainable for the thing itself which the [stock] certificate represents”—i.e., shares of stock.
• “[I]f [conversion] is maintainable for the [stock] certificate, there is no valid reason why [conversion] is not also maintainable for the thing itself which the [stock] certificate represents” — i.e., shares of stock.
• “[T]he certifícate is only evidence of the property; and it is not the only evidence, for a transfer on the books of the corporation, without the issuance of a certificate, vests title in the shareholder: the certificate is, therefore, but additional evidence of title.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).