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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.green2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 2 | 2 |
Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of Bakersfieldgreen2 sentences1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ 1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ | 2 | 2 |
Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ 1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Mearsgreen2 sentences1982Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d 208, 234 ; Estate of Mears (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 885, 889 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) ‘“Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of the equality of taxation.... 1982Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d 208, 234 ; Estate of Mears (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 885, 889 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) ‘“Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of the equality of taxation.... | 2 | 2 |
Stevens v. Watsongreen2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
City of San Jose v. Donohuegreen2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
County of Los Angeles v. Patrickgreen2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
Swoap v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co.green2 sentences1984Exact equality is not possible under any system of taxation.” (People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co. (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 339, 350-351 [ 161 P.2d 244 ]; see also Crocker-Anglo Nat. 1984Exact equality is not possible under any system of taxation.” (People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co. (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 339, 350-351 [ 161 P.2d 244 ]; see also Crocker-Anglo Nat. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abrams v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ 1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ | 2 | 1973–1984 |
Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ 1984If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions which are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation and otherwise, it will be deemed to be valid . . . .’ (Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal.App.2d 720, at p. 733 [ 57 P.2d 1022 ]; see also Fox, etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, 36 Cal.2d 136 [ 222 P.2d 879 ]; Garrett Corp. v. State Board of Equal., 189 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; Abrams v. San Francisco, 48 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 119 P.2d 197 ].) “ ‘Neither due process nor equ | 2 | 1973–1984 |
AMADOR VALLEY JT. UN. HIGH SCH. v. State Bd. of Equal.
green
2 sentences1982Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d 208, 234 ; Estate of Mears (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 885, 889 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 566 ].) "`Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of the equality of taxation.... 1982Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d 208, 234 ; Estate of Mears (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 885, 889 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) ‘“Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of the equality of taxation.... | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
green
2 sentences2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R 2011Neither due process nor equal protection imposes upon a state any rigid rule of equality of taxation. [Citations.] . .. [inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.’ ” (Stevens v. Watson (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 629, 633 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 190 ], quoting Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. (1937) 301 U.S. 495, 509-510 [ 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253 , 57 S.Ct. 868 ].) The rational basis test is used for both equal protection analysis involving economic legislation (Swoap v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490, 504 [ 111 Cal.R | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.