Peterson v. Bountiful City
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
ELLETT, Justice:
This is an action to recover taxes paid under protest and arose out of the follow'ing factual situation:
In December, 1966, the defendant City purported to annex 108 acres of adjoining land. The annexation ordinance was protested, and on December 12, 1967, this court held it to be invalid and of no force and effect1 for the reason that the majority of the landowners had not requested it as required by Section 10-3-1, U.C.A. 1953, as amended (Replacement Volume 2). While that case was pending in court, the city levied a tax upon the annexed land, which tax was collected by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Town of Balkan v. Village of BuhlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Neilson v. San Pete CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- Leach v. Port of TillamookOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- City of Birmingham v. BouldinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
- Jensen v. Bountiful CityUtah Supreme Court · 1967
3Cited by9 opinions
- Johnson v. Sandy City CorporationUtah Supreme Court · 1972
- Port Valdez Company, Inc. v. City of ValdezAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Doenges v. City of Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1980
- Ponderosa One Ltd. Partnership v. Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1987
- Copper Hills Enterprises, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.