§Why CasetextPricing

McCLAIN v. SAV-ON DRUGS

Amicus Curiae Brief of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

13 Cited authorities

  1. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 296 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  2. Loeffler v. Target Corp.

    58 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alleged overcollection of tax could not serve as a predicate for a California consumer protection claim when a business acted in conformity with governing taxing statutes

  3. Diamond National v. State Equalization Bd.

    425 U.S. 268 (1976)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding a bank was exempt from taxes under a federal statute that “was in effect at the time here pertinent”

  4. McClain v. Sav-On Drugs

    9 Cal.App.5th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In McClain v. Sav-On Drugs (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 684 (McClain), now under review by our Supreme Court (review granted June 14, 2017, S241471), a division of the Second Appellate District defined the circumstances under which a " Javor -type remedy" may be available but found them not to apply in that case.

  5. Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

    52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 28 times
    Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA

  6. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco

    93 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 35 times
    Flying Dutchman

  7. Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd.

    124 Cal.App.4th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Applying requirement to "claims arising out of negligence, nuisance, breach of statutory duties, intentional wrongs and contract."

  8. Javor v. State Board of Equalization

    12 Cal.3d 790 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the possibility that some retailers may have "already claimed and received a refund from the Board"

  9. Honeywell, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    48 Cal.App.3d 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. 43732. June 5, 1975. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C952668, Kenneth D. Holland, Judge. Retired judge of the superior court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council. COUNSEL Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Ernest P. Goodman, Assistant Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant. Clyde R. Maxwell and Karl F. Geiser for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION LORING, J.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned by the

  10. National Ice Etc. Co. v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.

    11 Cal.2d 283 (Cal. 1938)   Cited 39 times
    In National Ice Cold Storage Co. of California v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., 11 Cal.2d 283, 79 P.2d 380 (1938), the court held that the vendor could not add sales tax reimbursement to the price paid by a vendee under a pre-existing contract, even though the court was required, in order to reach this result, to hold unconstitutional a section of the taxing statute which expressly allowed such a result.

  11. Section 1591.1 - Specific Medical Devices, Appliances, and Related Supplies

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18 § 1591.1   Cited 3 times

    (a) Definitions. (1) Physicians, Dentists, Optometrists, and Podiatrists. "Physicians," "dentists," "optometrists," and "podiatrists" are persons authorized by a currently valid and unrevoked license to practice their respective professions in this state. "Physician" means and includes any person holding a valid and unrevoked physician's and surgeon's certificate or certificate to practice medicine and surgery, issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California