Legal Opinion
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. State Board of Equalization
California Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1880No. 7,356PublishedCited by 32 opinions
Petition for the writ of prohibition. The State Board of Equalization had given notice to the petitioner to appear at Sacramento, and show cause why the assessment of the property of the petitioner should not be raised.
1Opinion of the Court
Ross, J.:
There is but a single question in this cause, and that relates to the construction of § 9 of article xiii of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
“A State Board of Equalization, consisting of one member from each Congressional district in this State, shall be elected by the qualified electors of their respective districts at the general election to be held in the year 1879, whose term of office, after those first elected, shall be four years, whose duty it shall be to equalize the valuation of the taxable property of the several counties in the State for the purposes of taxation.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Wayman v. SouthardSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Houghton v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Savings & Loan Society v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Patten v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Hacker v. HoweNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Sargent v. ShumakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Rittersbacher v. Bd. of Supervisors of L.A. Cty.California Supreme Court · 1934
- San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Cottle v. SpitzerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.