Legal Opinion
Mudd v. McColgan
California Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1947No. L. A. 19663PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
The plaintiffs, five taxpayers, sued separately for refund of deficiency of 1936 personal income taxes assessed and paid. The actions were consolidated for trial. Judgment in each case was for the defendant Franchise Tax Commissioner, and each of the plaintiffs appealed.
The facts are similar in each case except for differences in amounts and dates. Details in the case of Harvey S. Mudd, No. 483412, will be given and the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiff filed his state personal income tax return for the calendar year 1936, on or before April 15, 1937. His…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- The HarrisburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Campbell v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Davis v. MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Edison California Stores, Inc. v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Douglas Aircraft Co. v. CranstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Nickelsberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Quarry v. Doe ICalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Wotton v. BushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.