Legal Opinion

County of Monterey v. Madolora

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 10, 1959No. Civ. 18468; Civ. 18469PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDraper, J.

Is a strawberry plant a vine? That is the question presented in these consolidated eases.

One action is by the county to collect taxes levied upon strawberry plants, and the other is by taxpayers to recover like taxes paid under protest. Judgment was in favor of both groups of taxpayers, and the county appeals.

Land and the improvements thereon are to be separately assessed for taxation (Cal. Const., art. XIII, §2). Under constitutional authorization (art. XIII, §13), the Legislature has defined “improvements” as including “fruit, nut bearing, or ornamental trees and vines ...” (Rev. & Tax.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. McMillan v. SiemonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. Miller v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Sheehy v. ShinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. California Motor Express, Ltd. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hom v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  2. Gibbons & Reed Co. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. City of Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Sand v. MahnanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Wilson v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API