Legal Opinion
Rosemary Properties, Inc. v. McColgan
California Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 1947No. S. F. 17263, 17264PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*678SPENCE, J.
Two actions were brought by plaintiff to recover additional franchise taxes assessed by defendant against plaintiff for the years 1938 and 1939, respectively. They were tried upon a stipulated set of facts, and they have been briefed together on appeal'in presenting a problem of statutory construction affecting the propriety of a dividend deduction for franchise tax purposes for the two years in question, under the terms of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (Stats. 1929, ch. 13, p. 19, as amended; Peering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 8488), hereinafter referred to as “the act.”…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hecht v. MalleySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Hecht v. MalleySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- County of Los Angeles v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- In Re AlpineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Union Oil Associates v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Robertson v. Health Net of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Weekes v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- American Medical International, Inc. v. Secretary of Health, Education & WelfareDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1979
- Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Security-First National Bank v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.