Legal Opinion
Munkdale v. Giannini
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 15, 1995No. A060619PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PHELAN, J.
Appellants Steve and Sharon Munkdale seek review of a judgment by which the San Mateo Superior Court denied their claim for a refund of property taxes paid. The trial court found that the respondents, County of San Mateo and its assessor, Roland Giannini, had properly reassessed 100 percent of certain parcels of real estate upon transfer of those properties from a partnership of which appellants were partners, to appellants as individuals, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 61, subdivision (i).
On appeal, the Munkdales contend that the conveyances did not involve a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Zaslow v. KroenertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Pacific Southwest Realty Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Bartlome v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Shuwa Investments Corp. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mayer v. C.W. DriverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- In Re Rodeo Canon Development Corporation, Debtor. William Warnick Ann Warnick, Individually and as Trustees of the William and Ann Warnick Family Living Trust Alan Warnick Jill Warnick, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Fred Yassian Beverly Rodeo Development Corporation, Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Tinseltown Video, Inc. v. Transportation InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Strong v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.