H. & W. Pierce, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
This action is brought by plaintiff to recover taxes paid under protest as provided by section 3819 of the Political Code.
It is contended by plaintiff, the appellant here, and admitted by respondent in its brief (although this contention was denied in the trial court) that this action being brought under said section, plaintiff was required to present no claim or demand for taxes so paid to the board of supervisors, and that the ruling of the trial court in sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to this affirmative defense, numbered “Third” in the answer, was proper. In view, therefore, of this…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Stanley v. Supervisors of AlbanySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- People v. Town of OntarioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Estate of BournCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Somers v. City of MeridenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Simms v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.