Legal Opinion
Edison California Stores, Inc. v. McColgan
California Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1947No. L. A. 19603, 19604PublishedCited by 102 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
On rehearing, counsel for the plaintiff have expressed great concern lest the tax laws be misapplied by an adherence to our former opinion. However, accepting as we must, the application of the law to unincorporated wholly-controlled branches or businesses located in other jurisdictions as set forth in Butler Brothers v. McColgan, 17 Cal.2d 664 [111 P.2d 334], 315 U.S. 501 [62 S.Ct. 701, 86 L.Ed. 991], the conclusion is irresistible that the same rule should apply to incorporated wholly-controlled branches or businesses so located. This is demonstrated by the following portions of our former…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina Ex Rel. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Butler Bros. v. McColgan, Franchise Tax CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Mudd v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Butler Brothers v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by102 opinions
- United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Agnew v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Douglas Aircraft Co. v. CranstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.