Legal Opinion

Estate of Steehler

California Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1925No. Docket No. L.A. 8040PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This was an inheritance tax case. The decision of this court in reversing the judgment made no provision for the recovery of costs. The clerk, however, issued a remittitur containing the provision “the appellants to recover costs of appeal.” The present motion is to recall the remittitur and to strike from it the last-named provision. The motion is, therefore, limited to the question as to whether or not the costs on appeal were recoverable against this respondent. The inheritance tax statute (Stats. 1921, p. 1520), section 17, subdivision 5, provides with reference to the state…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Petersen v. Civil Service BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Estate of GiolittiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. Markwort v. McGeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Flournoy v. WadeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. Flournoy v. SchmalenbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Horan v. VarianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API