Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THOMPSON, J.
In these 16 consolidated actions, we consider the right of appellants, taxpayers, to recover ad valorem personal property taxes paid without first pursuing their administrative remedies before the county board of equalization to reduce their assessments. We conclude that the facts 1 which govern our action do not excuse appellants from their duty to exhaust administrative remedies; We accordingly affirm the trial court’s judgments for respondents.
Without first seeking administrative review before the county board of equalization, appellants filed their lawsuits to recover…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Mission Housing Development Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Chesney v. GreshamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Farr v. County of NevadaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Roth v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.