Legal Opinion
Sugarman v. State Board of Equalization
California Supreme Court
Decided December 23, 1958No. S. F. 19777PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action for the refund of $3,206.83, an amount paid under protest as use tax, penalties, and interest.
The plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco. In January 1953, after personal negotiations in Europe and by mail from San Francisco, the plaintiff entered into a contract with an Amsterdam ship builder for the construction of a motor yacht. The yacht was to be built in Amsterdam for an agreed price of $65,000. Machinery of a value of $16,340.23 was purchased by the plaintiff from a Michigan manufacturer through its agent in Berkeley,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Southern Pacific Co. v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Empresa Siderurgica, S. A. v. County of MercedSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rice Growers' Ass'n of California v. County of YoloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Halo Sales Corp. v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Halo Sales Corp. v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971