County of San Bernardino v. State Board of Equalization
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The state board of equalization held that certain property of the Pacific Fruit Express Company, located at Colton, and comprising a “pre-cooling plant,” was exempt from local taxation because of the provisions of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution of this state. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the board, the authorities of San Bernardino County decided to test the correctness of the conclusion reached by the equalizers, and the result was this action founded upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to the provisions of section 1138 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City & County of San Francisco v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Southern Pacific Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Lake Tahoe Ry. & Transp. Co. v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Southern California Telephone Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Southern California Telephone Co. v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.