§Why CasetextPricing

DICON FIBEROPTICS v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

Respondent's Opening Brief on the Merits

39 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Janis

    428 U.S. 433 (1976)   Cited 1,123 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding the exclusionary rule inapplicable to civil tax proceedings

  2. People v. Murphy

    25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 337 times
    Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

  3. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist.

    29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 261 times
    In Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 62 P.3d 54], it held that a provision in that code must be interpreted "`"with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.

  4. DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.

    2 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 303 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding non-party employer, who was statutorily immune from suit, could be apportioned fault

  5. Flannery v. Prentice

    26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 184 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fees awarded under Government Code section 12965 belong to the attorney rather than the plaintiff, absent a contrary agreement

  6. Woods v. Young

    53 Cal.3d 315 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 207 times
    Holding statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is one year and 90 days when the plaintiff sends the physician-defendant a 90-day notice of intent to sue

  7. Lewis v. Reynolds

    284 U.S. 281 (1932)   Cited 357 times
    Holding that the government may "retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded"

  8. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 119 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  9. Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd.

    9 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 132 times
    Investigating a statute's "enactment history"

  10. Woosley v. State of California

    3 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 117 times
    In Woosley, supra, 3 Cal.4th 758, 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 838 P.2d 758, we reaffirmed the principle that "[t]he circumstance that our decision overrules prior decisions of the Courts of Appeal does not in itself justify prospective application."

  11. Section 41 - Credit for increasing research activities

    26 U.S.C. § 41   Cited 554 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Referring to 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)

  12. Section 8463 - Administration of a Vouchering Program

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25 § 8463   Cited 1 times

    (a) Each enterprise zone shall have and maintain a vouchering plan containing policies and procedures for the operation of a vouchering program. The plan shall meet the following criteria: (1) The plan shall have written vouchering policies and procedures that ensure compliance with Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 17053.74 and 23622.7, Government Code Section 7070 et seq., California Code of Regulations title 10, chapter 7.8 commencing with Section 5600, and this subchapter 21. (2) The plan shall