# Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.

> California Supreme Court · November 7, 1969 · 1 Cal. 3d 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531987

## Case

- **Full name:** JUNE K. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. H. F. AHMANSON & COMPANY Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 7, 1969
- **Citations:** 1 Cal. 3d 93; 81 Cal. Rptr. 592; 460 P.2d 464; 1969 Cal. LEXIS 195
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCOMB
- **Judges:** Traynor, McComb
- **Cited by:** 261 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531987

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that securities action was direct suit because “[i]t is clear from the stipulated facts and plaintiff's allegations that she does not seek to recover on behalf of the corporation for injury done to the corporation by defendants. . . . Thus, the gravamen of her cause of…
- holding that majority shareholders are fiduciaries with respect to minority shareholders and hold their "powers in trust”
- holding a plaintiff may bring a direct suit 23 against the corporation and its majority shareholder, even though the majority’s actions harmed 24 the company’s value
- holding that a suit against majority shareholders for decreased value of stock not derivative
- acknowledging that majority shareholders “have a fiduciary responsibility to the minority and to the corporation”

## Opinion text

McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment in favor of defendants for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Shinn and Mr. Justice Moss in the opinions prepared by them for the Court of Appeal in Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co., (Cal.App.) 76 Cal.Rptr. 293 .
The petition of the defendants and appellants for a rehearing was denied December 10, 1969, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Coughlin, J. pro tem., * sat in place of Mosk, J., who deemed himself disqualified. McComb, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9531987. Public record. Not legal advice.