Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett

11 Citing cases

  1. Cox v. Bates

    116 S.E.2d 828 (S.C. 1960)   Cited 27 times
    Finding no provision in the South Carolina Constitution which prohibits continuing appropriations

    kler, Gibbs Simons, of Charleston, of Counsel, for Defendants, cite: As to the supremelegislative power of the State being vested in the GeneralAssembly; and a statute will be declared unconstitutionalonly when its invalidity appears so clearly as to leave noroom for reasonable doubt that it violates some provisionof the Constitution: 216 S.C. 52, 56 S.E.2d 723; 1 Cooley Taxation (4th Ed.) par. 67. As to the attempteddelegation of executive powers being invalid under ArticleI, Section 14 of the State Constitution: 234 S.C. 35, 106 S.E.2d 665; 186 S.C. 134, 196 S.E. 257; 209 S.C. 19, 39 S.E.2d 133. As to the unconstitutional portionof the Act being separable from the remainder: 151 S.C. 99, 148 S.E. 726; 216 S.C. 52, 56 S.E.2d 723; 214 S.C. 451, 53 S.E.2d 316; 13 Rich. 498; 15 Rich. 198; 209 S.C. 19, 39 S.E.2d 133. As to the Act not violatingany provision of Article X, or Section 24 of ArticleIV of the Constitution: 4 S.C. 430; 81 C.J.S. 1215, (States, Sec. 164); (Colo.), 90 P.2d 522; 22 F. Supp. 951; 137 S.C. 288, 135 S.E. 153; 174 S.C. 422, 177 S.E. 688; 219 S.C. 485, 66 S.E.2d 33; 166 S.C. 58, 164 S.E. 439; 30 S.C. 579, 9 S.E. 661; 177 S.C. 399, 181 S.E. 476; 11 S.C. 458; 214 S.C. 451, 53 S.E.2d 316; (Okla.) 30 P.2d 700; 4 S.C. 403; 198 S.C. 225, 17 S.E.2d 524; 126 A.L.R. 891; 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, Par. 657; (Ill.

  2. California St. Bd., Equal. v. Coast Radio

    228 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1955)   Cited 28 times

    Seaboard Small Loan Co. et al. v. Ottinger, 4 Cir., 1931, 50 F.2d 856, 860, 77 A.L.R. 956. Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, D.C.N.D.Cal. 1938, 22 F. Supp. 951; Corbett v. Printers Publishers Corp., 9 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 195. See Title 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 1341, June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 932; based on Title 28 U.S.C. 1940 ed., ยง 41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, c. 231, ยง 24, par. 1, 36 Stat. 1091 [derived from R.S. ยงยง 563, 629]; May 14, 1934, c. 283, ยง 1, 48 Stat. 775; Aug. 21, 1937, c. 726, ยง 1, 50 Stat. 738; Apr. 20, 1940, c. 117, 54 Stat. 143).

  3. West Pub. Co. v. McColgan

    138 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1943)   Cited 18 times

    Remedies are provided in the taxing act, which, if prosecuted with diligence and energy, are both speedy and efficient. A provision in a taxing act that the collection of a tax thereunder may not be enjoined or suspended or restrained by process of a court is not unreasonable. Other taxing acts of the state of California, containing similar provisions, have been held to afford a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, D.C. Cal., 22 F. Supp. 951, 954; Corbett v. Printers Publishers Corp., 9 Cir., 127 F.2d 195, 197; Helms Bakeries v. State Board of Equalization, supra, 53 Cal.App.2d 417, 128 P.2d 167, 170. We hold that insofar as this suit is concerned, there is a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy open to the appellant in the state courts of California, wherein it may have its rights adjudicated, and, therefore, the court below was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaratory relief.

  4. Corbett v. Printers Publishers Corp.

    127 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1942)   Cited 12 times

    " This section, we think, afforded appellee a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in the courts of California. Compare Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, D.C.N.D.Cal., 22 F. Supp. 951, 954, 955. It is true that, at all times here pertinent, the tax imposed by ยง 3 was due and payable quarterly, that an action under ยง 31 had to be brought within 60 days after the tax became due and payable, and that, therefore, the tax for two or more quarters could not have been recovered in a single action.

  5. Phipps v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh

    111 F.2d 393 (3d Cir. 1940)   Cited 13 times

    Neither of these cases takes away in any degree from the intent or scope of the inhibition upon federal court jurisdiction contained in the amendment of August 21, 1937. While the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, in Printers Publishers Corp., Ltd., v. Corbett, 25 F. Supp. 369, took jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the collection of taxes levied by the California Retail Sales Act of 1933, holding that the remedy at law provided by the Tax Act (relief by injunctive process was expressly prohibited) was inadequate for the needs of the complainant in that case, the force of that decision was greatly weakened, to say the least, by the contemporaneous decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California in Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, 22 F. Supp. 951, where a statutory court dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, a suit to enjoin the collection of taxes levied under the California Use Tax Act of 1935, because the similar remedy at law provided by that act was plain, speedy and efficient. At best, these respective district courts are in conflict as to the adequacy of the remedy at law provided by the particular California tax statutes. Because of the similarity between the amendment to the Judicial Code of May 14, 1934, commonly known as the Johnson Act, and the amendment of August 21, 1937, with respect to the prerequisite to their application that a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had at law or in equity in the state courts, appellants cite several cases where, despite the Johnson Act, the jurisdiction of federal courts to enjoin enforcement of orders of state rate-making bodies was sustained.

  6. Carbonneau Industries, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids

    198 F. Supp. 629 (W.D. Mich. 1961)   Cited 3 times

    Shipbuilding Company, 5 Cir., 258 F.2d 240, 241; Norton v. Cass County, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 884, 885, 886; Phipps v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh, 3 Cir., 111 F.2d 393, 400; Baker v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 525, 530; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company v. Kingsley, D.C., 189 F. Supp. 39, 53; Kortz v. Ellingson, D.C., 181 F. Supp. 857, 859, 860; Chicago and North Western Railway Company v. Lyons, D.C., 148 F. Supp. 787, 792; Mid-Continent Airlines, Inc., v. Nebraska State Board of Equalization and Assessment, D.C., 105 F. Supp. 188, 199; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Morley, D.C., 88 F. Supp. 300, 303, 304; Independent Warehouses v. Saddle River TP, Bergen County, N.J., D.C., 52 F. Supp. 96, 97; Brown Motor Freight Lines v. O'Hara, D.C., 32 F. Supp. 173, 176; Collier Advertising Service v. City of New York, D.C., 32 F. Supp. 870, 872; Guerra v. City of Philadelphia, D.C., 30 F. Supp. 791; Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Roddewig, D.C., 24 F. Supp. 321, 324, 325; Nevada-California Electric Corporation v. Corbett, D.C., 22 F. Supp. 951, 956. Furthermore, in its complaint the plaintiff seeks damages "in an amount not to exceed $10,000.

  7. West Pub. Co. v. McColgan

    46 F. Supp. 163 (N.D. Cal. 1942)   Cited 1 times

    ' The Court then quoted Sec. 31 of the California Retail Sales Tax Act, Gen. Laws 1937, Act 8493, cited with approval Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, D.C., 22 F.Supp. 951, 954, 955, and held that Sec. 31 afforded appellee a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in the Courts of California, where constitutional questions may be determined, and, upon appeal, reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. 'No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against this State or against any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin under this act the collection of any tax sought to be collected; but after payment of any such tax under protest, duly verified and setting forth the grounds of objection to the legality of such tax, the retailer paying such tax may bring an action against the State Treasurer in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county of Sacramento for the recovery of tax so paid under protest.

  8. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. State Board of Equalization

    35 F. Supp. 553 (D. Wyo. 1940)   Cited 8 times

    It is interesting to note that from the similarity by comparison of the Wyoming Act to the California Act, the former was modeled after the latter but did not carry into its provisions the safeguards provided for the taxpayer. This is illustrated by the discussion of the court found in the case of Nevada-California Electric Corp. v. Corbett, D.C., 22 F. Supp. 951. It is apparent that in the California Act the entire tax fund is appropriated and earmarked for the purpose of the payment of refunds and therefore any judgment for the recovery of illegal taxes would be enforceable against the official by whom they are collected. Just why this seemingly logical and just provision was not carried into the Wyoming legislation is not apparent. It may have been that the California statute was followed before the amendments incorporated the above principles. It is sincerely to be hoped that the Wyoming statutes were not enacted for the purpose of being arbitrarily enforced without giving the taxpayer his day in court and without an opportunity to be relieved of illegal taxation and with no remedy to at least partially restore him to his position before the illegal tax was collected. It has been suggested in the brief of defendants' counsel that Sections 89-4201 and 89-4203 of the Wyoming Revised Statutes of 1931 apply to Sales and Use Tax statutes and a

  9. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Roddewig

    24 F. Supp. 321 (S.D. Iowa 1938)   Cited 11 times
    Construing "collection of taxes" under predecessor to state tax antiinjunction act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1341

    The fact, if it be a fact, that the Board might have pursued some other remedy, such as a suit at law to collect the tax in the State courts, does not prevent the Board from taking some other method provided by the statute to collect the tax if it sees fit to so elect. Our conclusions find some support in the case of Nevada-California Electric Corporation v. Corbett, D.C., 22 F. Supp. 951, determined by a statutory court in California. Conclusions of Law.

  10. State v. Robinson

    83 P.2d 983 (Idaho 1938)   Cited 9 times
    In State ex rel. Taylor v. Robinson, 59 Idaho 485, 83 P.2d 983, the court was concerned with the unemployment compensation fund, created by chapter 12 of the Third Extraordinary Session of the 1935 legislature, and in cooperation with the federal government.

    See, also, State ex rel. Hansen v. Parsons, 57 Idaho 775, 69 P.2d 788, and In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676, 692, 266 Pac. 665. The following authorities so far as applicable, in principle at least, support plaintiff: State v. Miser, 50 Ariz. 244, 72 P.2d 408; Nevada-California Elec. Corp. v. Corbett, 22 Fed. Supp. 951. Judgment for plaintiff and permanent writ issued.