San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. City of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Prank G. Pinlayson, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, Jess E. Stephens, Assistant City Attorney, and Wm. P. Healey, Deputy City-Attorney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
The plaintiff is lessee of certain tide-lands situated in the city of Los Angeles and belonging to the state. The city assessed this leasehold estate and levied a tax thereon, which plaintiff paid under protest and in due time brought this action to recover the same. Judgment went for plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed..On a hearing heretofore had of the case, it was considered in connection with L. A. No. 4504, entitled San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (Cal.), 179 Pac. 390, which, as to the power of the municipality to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- California v. Central Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- People v. ShearerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Trimble v. City of SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Kaiser Co. v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Forster Shipbuilding Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Sproul v. GilbertOregon Supreme Court · 1961
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.