Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2020XIII, § 32]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn (1960) 54 Cal.2d 507, 512 [mandate denied where statute authorized paying taxes under protest and suing for refund]; Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1355 [mandate not available to taxpayer with statutory authority to file refund action as a device for judicial review of assessment appeals board’s decision on the merits, as distinguished from review of its ministerial duties or audits].) However, mandamus may lie where the taxpayers challenge an administrative agency’s failure to fulfill its admi | 1 | 1 |
Sunrise Retirement Villa v. Deargreen2 sentences2020(See, e.g., Sunrise, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 955 [mandate lies where administrative agency erroneously fails or refuses to decide factual issue, but court may not “step into the shoes of the agency and perform its function for it”]; Flightsafety International Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 620, 628-629 [affirming trial court’s issuance of writ requiring appeals board to perform its administrative duty]; County of Sacramento, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at pp. 672-674 [assessment appeals board erroneously ruled it had no jurisdiction]; Main & Von Karman Associates v. County 2020(See, e.g., Sunrise, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 955 [mandate lies where administrative agency erroneously fails or refuses to decide factual issue, but court may not “step into the shoes of the agency and perform its function for it”]; Flightsafety International Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 620, 628-629 [affirming trial court’s issuance of writ requiring appeals board to perform its administrative duty]; County of Sacramento, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at pp. 672-674 [assessment appeals board erroneously ruled it had no jurisdiction]; Main & Von Karman Associates v. County | 1 | 1 |
Flightsafety International Inc. v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2020(See, e.g., Sunrise, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 955 [mandate lies where administrative agency erroneously fails or refuses to decide factual issue, but court may not “step into the shoes of the agency and perform its function for it”]; Flightsafety International Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 620, 628-629 [affirming trial court’s issuance of writ requiring appeals board to perform its administrative duty]; County of Sacramento, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at pp. 672-674 [assessment appeals board erroneously ruled it had no jurisdiction]; Main & Von Karman Associates v. County | 1 | 1 |
Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinngreen1 sentence2020XIII, § 32]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn (1960) 54 Cal.2d 507, 512 [mandate denied where statute authorized paying taxes under protest and suing for refund]; Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1355 [mandate not available to taxpayer with statutory authority to file refund action as a device for judicial review of assessment appeals board’s decision on the merits, as distinguished from review of its ministerial duties or audits].) However, mandamus may lie where the taxpayers challenge an administrative agency’s failure to fulfill its admi | 1 | 1 |
City of Palmdale v. City of Lancastergreen1 sentence2015(Cf. City of Palmdale v. City of Lancaster (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 978, 986-987 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying disgorgement where complaint did not pray for damages, defendant was not on notice plaintiff might seek monetary relief, and equities did not support awarding damages].) Considering the circumstances in this case favorably to support the trial court's decision, we believe a trial judge could reasonably deny Taxpayers's motion. | 1 | 1 |
Contra Costa Theatre, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agencygreen2 sentences2010(See Contra Costa Theatre, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 860, 865, 866 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 630 ] (Contra Costa) [summary comported with the requirements of § 33433 “by providing ample information for those interested in assessing the fairness and the tax cost of the transaction”; disclosures “substantially complie[d] with the relevant statutory requirements”].) As to Taxpayers’ claim that there is no “estimated value of the interest to be conveyed” or financial data on the highest and best use of the Moore/166th Street properties that the City will lease to the District, the A 2010(See Contra Costa Theatre, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 860, 865, 866 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 630 ] (Contra Costa) [summary comported with the requirements of § 33433 “by providing ample information for those interested in assessing the fairness and the tax cost of the transaction”; disclosures “substantially complie[d] with the relevant statutory requirements”].) As to Taxpayers’ claim that there is no “estimated value of the interest to be conveyed” or financial data on the highest and best use of the Moore/166th Street properties that the City will lease to the District, the A | 1 | 1 |
Darces v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2009The additional tax paid pursuant to this represents only a small fraction of the amount of tax reduction they are realizing through recent changes in the federal income tax law and only a small portion of what they save on property taxes by living in California as compared to the property taxes they would be paying on multi-million dollar homes in other states.” (Prop. 63, § 2.) *434 Constitutionality of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 17043 1 The Taxpayers challenge Revenue and Taxation Code section 17043 on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause. 2 The equal protection cl 2009The additional tax paid pursuant to this represents only a small fraction of the amount of tax reduction they are realizing through recent changes in the federal income tax law and only a small portion of what they save on property taxes by living in California as compared to the property taxes they would be paying on multi-million dollar homes in other states.” (Prop. 63, § 2.) *434 Constitutionality of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 17043 1 The Taxpayers challenge Revenue and Taxation Code section 17043 on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause. 2 The equal protection cl | 1 | 1 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1974Whatever may be the merit of Taxpayers’ analysis in the abstract, Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ], mandates that this court follow our Supreme Court’s lead. 1974Whatever may be the merit of Taxpayers’ analysis in the abstract, Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ], mandates that this court follow our Supreme Court’s lead. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 2
green
1 sentence2020(See, e.g., Sunrise, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 955 [mandate lies where administrative agency erroneously fails or refuses to decide factual issue, but court may not “step into the shoes of the agency and perform its function for it”]; Flightsafety International Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 620, 628-629 [affirming trial court’s issuance of writ requiring appeals board to perform its administrative duty]; County of Sacramento, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at pp. 672-674 [assessment appeals board erroneously ruled it had no jurisdiction]; Main & Von Karman Associates v. County | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015(Gunderson v. Wall, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1065 ; Smith v. Smith, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d at p. 958 .) Taxpayers has not carried its burden on appeal to persuade us the trial court's decision to deny its motion for monetary relief was arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise erroneous. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gunderson v. Wall
green
1 sentence2015(Gunderson v. Wall, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1065 ; Smith v. Smith, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d at p. 958 .) Taxpayers has not carried its burden on appeal to persuade us the trial court's decision to deny its motion for monetary relief was arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise erroneous. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Conway v. City of San Mateo
green
2 sentences2010From this fact Taxpayers claim, without citation to the record or to any authority, that if Cuesta Villas should fail to qualify for the tax exemptions specifically permitted by section 37001, “it will have an ad valorem tax exemption through the District’s ownership of the land[]” and therefore will not meet the requirement in section 37001 of “receiving no ad valorem property tax exemption . . . .” (§ 37001, subd. (a)(1).) This claim is directly contradicted by the principle pointed out in Conway v. City of San Mateo (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 330 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 561 ] (Conway), which held that a 2010From this fact Taxpayers claim, without citation to the record or to any authority, that if Cuesta Villas should fail to qualify for the tax exemptions specifically permitted by section 37001, “it will have an ad valorem tax exemption through the District’s ownership of the land[]” and therefore will not meet the requirement in section 37001 of “receiving no ad valorem property tax exemption . . . .” (§ 37001, subd. (a)(1).) This claim is directly contradicted by the principle pointed out in Conway v. City of San Mateo (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 330 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 561 ] (Conway), which held that a | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rider v. County of San Diego
green
2 sentences2010Their principal contention, within which the others are subsumed, is that the City and Agency control Cuesta Villas, and therefore the senior housing project cannot be considered “privately owned.” Taxpayers claim the principles enunciated in Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ] (Rider I)—-where the Supreme Court held that an intent to circumvent Proposition 13 could be inferred where the plaintiffs proved a newly created tax agency was “essentially controlled” by a city or county that otherwise would have had to comply with a supermajority vote 2010Their principal contention, within which the others are subsumed, is that the City and Agency control Cuesta Villas, and therefore the senior housing project cannot be considered “privately owned.” Taxpayers claim the principles enunciated in Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ] (Rider I)—-where the Supreme Court held that an intent to circumvent Proposition 13 could be inferred where the plaintiffs proved a newly created tax agency was “essentially controlled” by a city or county that otherwise would have had to comply with a supermajority vote | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Craig v. City of Poway
green
2 sentences2010(Craig, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 .) Before the amendments to which Craig referred, section 33334.2(e)(2) provided that the agency could “ ‘[i]mprove land or building sites with onsite or offsite improvements.’ ” (Craig, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 335 , italics omitted.) In 1988, section 33334.2(e)(2) was amended to provide that the agency could “ ‘[i]mprove land or building sites with onsite or offsite improvements, . . . but only if the improvements directly and specifically improve or increase the community’s supply of low- or moderate-income housing.’ ” (Craig, at p. 335, italics om 2010(Craig, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 .) Before the amendments to which Craig referred, section 33334.2(e)(2) provided that the agency could “ ‘[i]mprove land or building sites with onsite or offsite improvements.’ ” (Craig, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 335 , italics omitted.) In 1988, section 33334.2(e)(2) was amended to provide that the agency could “ ‘[i]mprove land or building sites with onsite or offsite improvements, . . . but only if the improvements directly and specifically improve or increase the community’s supply of low- or moderate-income housing.’ ” (Craig, at p. 335, italics om | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rider v. City of San Diego
green
2 sentences2010But, as is apparent from the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Rider v. City of San Diego (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1035 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 189 , 959 P.2d 347 ] (Rider II), they do not. 2010But, as is apparent from the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Rider v. City of San Diego (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1035 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 189 , 959 P.2d 347 ] (Rider II), they do not. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Easton v. County of Alameda
green
2 sentences1997We address first Taxpayers’ claim that their attorney may properly verify the refund claim on their behalf under Easton v. County of Alameda (1937) 9 Cal.2d 301 [ 70 P.2d 640 ] (Easton). 1997We address first Taxpayers’ claim that their attorney may properly verify the refund claim on their behalf under Easton v. County of Alameda (1937) 9 Cal.2d 301 [ 70 P.2d 640 ] (Easton). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Ass'n v. County of Santa Barbara
green
2 sentences1992Taxpayers alleged that the Board’s action violated section 5, which provides that “contributions” to “retirement” funds are “subject to limitation.” Following the Second District’s decision in Santa Barbara Taxpayers (supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 674 ), the superior court granted Taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against the Board. 1992Taxpayers alleged that the Board’s action violated section 5, which provides that “contributions” to “retirement” funds are “subject to limitation.” Following the Second District’s decision in Santa Barbara Taxpayers (supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 674 ), the superior court granted Taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against the Board. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mundo
green
1 sentence1974(Bank of America v. Mundo, supra, 37 Cal.2d 1, 5 .) Excluded Evidence At trial, Taxpayers offered evidence in the fonn of “admissions of members of the Board” that: (1) the ratio of assessed value to market value for all locally assessable property in the county was 25 percent; (2) neither the Board nor the county made any determination of county-wide ratio; (3) four of the five Board members were aware that the ratio in 1962 was about 25 percent but that the assessor had advised them that so long as it did not exceed 50 percent it was valid; and (4) the official State Board of Equalization fi | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.