Legal Opinion

Loeffler v. Target Corporation

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 2014No. S173972PublishedCited by 147 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

Plaintiffs are consumers who contend that defendant retailer represented that it properly was charging and in fact charged them sales tax reimbursement on sales of hot coffee sold “to go,” when, according to plaintiffs, the tax code rendered such sales exempt from sales tax. They brought an action against defendant retailer under two consumer protection statutes, seeking a refund of the assertedly unlawful charges, damages, and an injunction forbidding collection of sales tax reimbursement for such sales. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by147 opinions

  1. Kwan v. SanMedica InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  2. People v. HoytCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Weatherford v. City of San RafaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Jacks v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  5. People v. SivongxxayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017

142 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