Legal Opinion
Asher v. Johnson
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 18, 1938No. Civ. 5887; Civ. 5888; Civ. 5889; Civ. 5890; Civ. 5891; Civ. 5892; Civ. 5893; Civ. 5894PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The defendants have appealed in eight cases which were consolidated for the purpose of trial. These actions were brought to recover sales taxes paid under protest by the respondents or to obtain the cancellation of bonds given to secure the payment of such taxes. The taxes were collected and the bonds required, in good faith, by the agents of the state board of equalization, pursuant to the provisions of the California Retail Sales Tax Act. (Stats. 1933, p. 2599, Deering’s Gen. Supp. Laws, 1933, p. 2360, Act 8493.)
The trial court found that the gross receipts of the enterprises from which the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Salt Lake City v. HollisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Roth Drug, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Morrow v. HennefordWashington Supreme Court · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Vancil v. AndersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
- Lee on v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Guerin v. KirstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. California Tractor & Equipment Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Wallace v. OpinhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.