Legal Opinion · Dissent

Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. White

California Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1921No. Sac. No. 2935Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Dissent

SLOANE, J., Dissenting.

I dissent. The reasoning of the majority opinion that this constitutional provision should be strictly interpreted against the tax in question because all intendments of the law are against the taxation of public property cannot apply in this instance, because here the provision involved is avowedly dealing with the taxation of public property.

Section 1 of article XIII expressly defines what classes of public property shall be exempt from taxation. It discloses, first, “that all property in the state except as otherwise in this constitution provided, not exempt under…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Tulare Irrigation District v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Merchants National Bank v. Escondido Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Dean v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Central Irrigation District v. De LappeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

19 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