Legal Opinion
City of Glendale v. Crescenta Mutual Water Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1955No. Civ. 20641PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ASHBURN, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiff city of Glendale appeals from a judgment denying it recovery of an amount alleged to be due from defendant Crescenta Mutual Water Company as an excise tax upon the use of water distributed within city territory. The judgment rests primarily upon a holding that the application of the city ordinance to defendant and its shareholders works an unlawful discrimination and denial of constitutional rights.
Defendant is a mutual water company engaged in distributing water both within and outside of the city of Glendale. It has about 1,500 users within the city and 1,700…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co. v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Farmers and Mechanics Sav. Bank of Minneapolis v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Potter v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- City of Glendale v. TrondsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- REID v. ReidOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Erwin v. Gage Canal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Handlery v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.