Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Universal Consolidated Oil Co. v. Byram

California Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1944No. L. A. 18121; L. A. 18122Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarter, J.

Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur in the judgment of reversal but there is much in the majority opinion with which I do not agree. In my opinion the plaintiffs have not pursued the proper remedy to obtain the relief which they are seeking, assuming that they are entitled to such relief. The proper remedy for a taxpayer to pursue where he asserts that there has been a gross and discriminatory overvaluation of his property after seeking relief from the board of supervisors sitting as a board of equalization, or where he claims that he has been denied procedural due process of law by the…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Clyde Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Taylor v. SecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Fayerweather v. RitchSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1907

34 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