Legal Opinion

General Engineering & Dry Dock Co. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 27, 1932No. Docket No. 8531PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (GEORGE H.), J., pro tem.

This action was brought by the above-named five plaintiffs [General Engineering and Dry Dock Co., Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, Iiilbar Properties Co., Real Property Investment Corp., and California Cotton Mills Co.] to secure a judgment of the court decreeing to be void the assessment and tax levied and collected by the defendant district for the fiscal year 1929 and adjudging that the sums paid by each of the said plaintiffs respectively as such tax be returned. The complaint was divided into ten counts, each of said plaintiffs being an active…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Co. v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  4. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  5. People Ex Rel. Carter v. . RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Board of Fund Commissioners v. HolmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  2. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Kahn v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Eastern Municipal Water District v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Wilde v. City of DunsmuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020

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