Legal Opinion · Dissent

Penaat v. Terwilliger

California Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1944No. S. F. 16864Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent. If this were a case of first impression before this court, I would be disposed to agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the publication of the delinquent tax list and of the notice of sale complied with the requirements of sections 3766, 3767 and 3771a of the Political Code and that the judgment should therefore be reversed. But I am convinced that the case of Clayton v. Schultz, 22 Cal.App.2d 72 [70 P.2d 512], is squarely on all fours with this case and that these two eases cannot be fairly distinguished. While the majority opinion attempts to distinguish…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Holland v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Union Oil Associates v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  5. In Re NowakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

14 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