City & County of San Francisco v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Percy V. Long, City Attorney, and Jesse H. Steinhart, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered in favor of defendant pursuant to an order sustaining its demurrer to the complaint.
The action was brought to recover a license fee or tax upon defendant’s business as a telephone company. In May, 1903, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco enacted an ordinance providing, in section 1, that “every person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of supplying telephone service to or for the inhabitants of this city and county shall pay a license as follows:
“First—Those whose gross receipts amount to five…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wayman v. SouthardSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Ex Parte BraunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Town of Santa Monica v. GuidingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- City of Sonora v. CurtinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Merrill Railway & Lighting Co. v. City of MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Galvan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Alward v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Mutual Life Insurance v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Pullman Co. v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Garcia v. HalsettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.