Hise v. McColgan
California Supreme Court
1DissentCurtis, J.
I dissent. Reference to the plain language of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act of California (Stats. 1929, p. 19; Act 8488, 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws of California (1937), p. 3851) is sufficient to show that the operations of the State Building and Loan Commissioner in liquidating • a building and loan association are not within its purview. Thus, section 4 (1) of the Act imposes a tax upon “every financial corporation doing business within the . . . State . . . for the privilege of exercising its corporate franchises” therein; and section 5 of the Act defines “doing business” as…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Union League Club v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- People v. WeitzelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Loew's Inc. v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Magruder v. Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Realty Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.