Pullman Co. v. Richardson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. T. C. Coogan, Burke Corbet, Corbet & Selby, Francis B. Daniels and Gustavus S. Fernald for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
The plaintiff brought seven separate suits for the purpose of recovering from the treasurer of the state of California taxes paid by it under protest. The taxes were levied at the rate of either three or four per cent upon the gross receipts from the business of the plaintiff transacted in the state of California. The rate is fixed and the tax authorized by section 14, article XIII, of the constitution of California, amended in 1910, and statutes passed in pursuance thereof. Approximately fifty per cent of the gross revenue of the plaintiff corporation in California consists of returns from…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of WakefieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Shaffer v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Hopkins v. Southern California Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Pullman Co. v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Kirkwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Pullman Co. v. Richardson, State Treasurer of California. Hines, Director General of Railroads v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.