Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People Ex Rel. Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 7, 1985No. B003338Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUI, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I reluctantly concur in the majority’s holding that binding precedent prevents Safeco’s challenge to the subpoena in a special proceeding brought pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code *556sections 11187-11188 and that Safeco’s assertion that the subpoena seeks information in violation of its policyholder’s right of privacy is without merit. However, my agreement with the majority ends with these limited points. Entities in Safeco’s position must have the right to litigate the retroactive application of rulings they have obtained from the Franchise Tax Board…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Arnett v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Bob Jones University v. SimonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

23 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