Harold Randall, for Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
CROCKER, District Judge:
This is an appeal from a dismissal of the action in the district court on the grounds that a federal court cannot act where there exists a plain, speedy and efficient state remedy.
The pertinent facts are as follows: In April 1969, appellant, under penalty of perjury, filed a personal income tax return for 1968 indicating $90.00 due in state taxes. No payment was made. On two occasions the Franchise Tax Board (Board) notified appellant of the delinquency. The latter notice requested that he appear before the Board to arrange payment. Appellant did not respond to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Matthews v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Aronoff v. Franchise Tax BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
3Cited by8 opinions
- Franchise Tax Board v. United States Postal ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Wood v. SargeantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Greene v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Newton v. PoindexterDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1984
- Bills v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE & TAXATIONIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.