california corporate-law
Do corporations have equal rights with natural persons to carpool on California freeways?
<p>Articles on <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Corporation-not-person-in-carpool-lanes-4173366.php">SFGATE from 2013</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Frieman">Wikipedia: Jonathan Frieman</a> describe the legal efforts of Johnathan Frieman of San Rafael, CA in creating an odd test case for corporate personhood.  </p>

<p>Frieman argues that if corporate personhood is valid, and corporations have legal rights of people as evidenced by e.g., the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that a corporation's constitutional rights as a person, specifically their rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, barred the government from limiting corporate donations to political campaigns, then corporations should have a right to join a carpool and thereby enable a vehicle to legally occupy the carpool lane.  </p>

<p>This may also be some kind of test case / legal protest of corporate person as the article suggests he would also be OK with a ruling that corporations aren't really people after all.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Ford Greene, Frieman's attorney, pointed to California vehicle code section 470, which says the definition of a person includes "natural persons and corporations." The signs on the freeways ask carpoolers to carry "2 or more persons" which, Greene said, "is constitutionally vague."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&amp;group=00001-01000&amp;file=100-680">The CVC online</a> shows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="470">
  <li>"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership,
  association, limited liability company, or corporation.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>but this is a general definition and I would expect the part of the CVC that discusses the HOV lanes to have its own definition or terminology for a person, or perhaps an occupant, etc...</p>

<p>The traffic court judge ruled against Frieman, citing the purpose of the carpool lane as defined in the code is to reduce traffic congestion:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion ... And so I'm finding you guilty."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But Frieman plans an appeal...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Outside the courtroom, Frieman said he would appeal the ruling within 30 days.
  "I expected to lose," Frieman said. "And I expected the judge to cite the reasons he did."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Questions:</p>

<ul>
<li>has there been an appeal of this case in California?</li>
<li>if not, does Frieman have a case or is this purely frivolous nonsense? </li>
</ul>

<p>Information on similar cases is welcome.</p>

<p>This is an amusing idea, but ultimately it seems frivolous: How does one establish the physical presence of a corporation in a car?</p>

<p>Yes, corporations have <em>some</em> of the legal rights and liabilities of people, but they are not people.  And there are plenty of rights a person has that a corporation does not.  For example (at present) a corporation can't be a party to a marriage.  The closest a corporation comes to any corporal presence is the address listed of their agents.</p>
