Legal Opinion · Dissent

Peacock Hill Ass'n v. Peacock Lagoon Construction Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1972No. S.F. 22907Published

1DissentMosk, J.

I dissent. The majority concede that “[Tjhe purpose of section

23301 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is to put pressure on the delinquent corporation to pay its taxes . . . .” (Ante, p. 371.) Yet that purpose is frustrated by permitting a delinquent corporation, merely through tardy payment of taxes, to validate all of the actions taken during its period of suspension. Under that concept the stick becomes a carrot; all incentive to avoid punitive disabilities dissolves. Upon exposure of its delinquency the corporation suffers little more than fleeting embarrassment, and, indeed, it is then…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Rossi v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. WilsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

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

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

Powered by the Exa API