Miller & Lux Inc. v. Richardson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco-. George A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtOlney, J.
This is an action to recover taxes paid under protest by the plaintiff corporation upon alleged illegal and arbitrary assessments of its “franchise” for the years 1911 to 1915, inclusive, by the state board of equalization. The plaintiff is a foreign corporation and possesses no special franchise or privilege within the state which the state 'board of equalization was attempting to assess. The only franchise in the strict sense of that word which would be covered by the assessments in question is the privilege of the plaintiff to do business as a corporation within the state. The assessments…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Adams Express Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Spring Valley Water Works v. SchottlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Crocker v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- People ex rel. Burke v. BadlamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Union Oil Associates v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Kirkwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Community Redevelopment Agency v. AbramsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.