Legal Opinion
The Pacific Co., Ltd. v. Johnson
California Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 1931No. Docket No. Sac. 4500PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover certain taxes paid under protest and alleged to have been unconstitutionally exacted. Defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend. From the judgment thereafter entered plaintiff prosecuted this appeal, urging the invalidity of those portions of the Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act (Stats. 1929, chap. 13, p. 19), which provide for and require the inclusion of interest from “federal, state, municipal or other bonds’’ in the net income base by which the state franchise tax of banks and corporations is measured. The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Home Insurance v. New York StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Willcutts v. BunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Educational Films Corp. of America v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Society for Savings v. CoiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Pacific Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Miller v. McColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Kirkwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Southern Pacific Co. v. McColganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Marsh & McLennan of California, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.