Estate of Johnson
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I. I. Brown, John H. Durst, and Garoutte & Goodwin, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
There are two appeals, the one taken hy resident nephews and nieces, the other by non-resident nephews and nieces, citizens of sister states. Both are from the order of the court holding their respective distributive portions of the estate of the deceased liable for the payment of the collateral inheritance tax under the law as it stood in 1897. (Stats. 1897, p. 77.) So much of section 1 of that act as is necessary to this consideration is as follows: “After the passage of this act, all property which shall pass by will, . . . other than to the use of his or her father, mother, husband, wife,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Butchers' Benevolent Ass'n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. WellmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Ward v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Harkrader v. WadleySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Spraigue v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- People v. StankewitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Kopp v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.