Legal Opinion
Butler Brothers v. McColgan
California Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1941No. S. F. 16157PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
This action was brought to recover an additional assessment made by the defendant as Franchise Tax Commissioner under authority of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (Stats. 1929, chap. 13, as amended) for the taxable year 1936, based upon income for the year 1935, paid by plaintiff under protest. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appealed therefrom.
The cause was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, which may be summarized as follows:
Plaintiff, Butler Brothers (herein called “the Company”), is an Illinois corporation, having its principal corporate…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Taylor v. SecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina Ex Rel. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Underwood Typewriter Co. v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State AuditorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Butler Bros. v. McColgan, Franchise Tax CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Edison California Stores, Inc. v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Earth Resources Co. of Alaska v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
- Southern Pacific Co. v. McColganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.