Legal Opinion

IBM Personal Pension Plan v. City & County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 15, 2005No. A107090PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SIMONS, J. —

Revenue and Taxation Code 1 section 5140 provides that a real estate property tax refund action may be brought by the “person who paid the tax .... No other person may bring such an action; but if another should do so, judgment shall not be rendered for the plaintiff.” In this matter, the IBM Personal Pension Plan (Plan) filed suit to recover property taxes and fraud penalties paid on its behalf by the Plan’s trustee, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase). Because we believe that the standing requirement in section 5140 means what it says, we conclude that the Plan, though…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Woosley v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Javor v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Decorative Carpets, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. BurmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Batt v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. People v. HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Wallace v. Geico General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Schoshinksi v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

27 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