Peacock Hill Ass'n v. Peacock Lagoon Construction Co.
California Supreme Court
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
- Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1967
- Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Rossi v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. WilsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.