Legal Opinion · Dissent

Miller v. McKenna

California Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1944No. L. A. 18157Published

1Dissent

TRAYNOR, J., Dissenting.

The majority opinion fails to specify any statutory requirement that the notices of sale did not meet. It states that the trial court found the notices of sale fatally defective because they omitted the word “penalties” in stating the amount due. Actually, however, there is no finding by the trial court as to why the notices were invalid or in what manner they departed from the statutes then in effect.

If any irregularity exists it is essential that it be identified. If there was no departure from the statutory requirements the tax deeds are valid; if there was, it is…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Graham & Foster v. GoodcellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. People v. McCreeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. WellesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922

44 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