Legal Opinion

Bainbridge v. County of Riverside

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 28, 1959No. Civ. 5961PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE, J. pro tem. *

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The plaintiffs Bainbridge and Watkins were engaged in a joint busi ness venture, one of its purposes being to move houses from Oceanside, San Diego County, to land located in an unincorporated territory of Riverside County. Prior to the beginning of the business venture by the plaintiffs the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County enacted an ordinance requiring the payment of a license tax of $50 for each house moved onto land in an unincorporated area. Plaintiff Bainbridge paid under…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Artukovich v. AstendorfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Lubin v. LubinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Trower v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Dillard v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Smith v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Collins v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  2. XCO International Inc. v. Pacific Scientific Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API