Plaintiff taxpayers appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.

 Plaintiff taxpayers appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California), entering judgment in favor of the defendant county tax collector in action to recover taxes.

Attorney law




Defendant levied taxes against plaintiff as a tenant of shipyards upon which plaintiff constructed government vessels. class action lawyers Orange County  set taxes. The taxes were levied upon plaintiff's possessory interests. The United States, based upon an agreement to reimburse the plaintiff for taxes paid, intervened in the action. Plaintiff argued that its use and possession of the two shipyards was not property within the meaning of the law, that even if its interest was property, it was without taxable value, and that the levies were invalid because they amounted to an assessment upon government property. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the possessory interest constituted taxable property under the law, that the property had taxable value, and that the taxes were not improperly assessed against the government since they were levied only against plaintiff's possessory interest and not on the full value of the property.




The court affirmed, holding that the taxes were properly levied against plaintiff's possessory interest in the shipyards.


Petitioner attorney appealed the recommendation of the review department of respondent California State Bar, that petitioner be disbarred for depositing into a personal account 24 checks payable to the law firm where he was a partner.




Petitioner attorney misappropriated nearly $ 30,000.00 from the law firm where he was a partner. After a hearing, respondent California State Bar issued a recommendation that petitioner be disbarred. The court concluded that the recommendation was appropriate, holding that petitioner's conduct violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106, as well as the Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct Std. 2.3. The court accorded the findings of respondent great weight and determined that the mitigating factors of family stresses claimed by petitioner were not persuasive in light of the nature of his breach of fiduciary duties and moral accountability.




The court ordered that petitioner attorney be disbarred, holding that mitigating factors of family and personal strife were insufficient to reduce the punishment for his breach of fiduciary duty and moral accountability.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plaintiff who was in the business of factoring medical accounts sued defendants the lawyers of an injured person.

Image
 Procedural Posture  Offended party, who was occupied with considering clinical records, sued litigants, the legal counselors of a harmed individual, for break of trustee obligation and change. The Sacramento County Superior Court, California, entered judgment for litigants after it supported their challenge to the reason for activity for break of trustee obligation and allowed their movement for synopsis judgment on different reasons for activity. Offended party claimed.  Outline  The harmed individual had given offended party a lien against any recuperation he may get for his wounds, however his case made due with somewhat not as much as what was spent in suit costs. The court inferred that offended party's claims against litigants were lacking to express a reason for activity for break of guardian obligation. The lien made just a legally binding obligation to retain cash for offended party in the occasion the suit was fruitful. Offended party was not litigants' cu...
Read more

Defendant sought review of the order of the Court of Appeal of California.

Image
 Procedural Posture  Respondent looked for survey of the request for the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, switching the preliminary court's award of its movement for another preliminary.  Outline  Offended party sued respondent, a conspicuous performer, for aggregates purportedly due under an oral agreement. Respondent looked for synopsis judgment on grounds that under the supposed agreement offended party went about as an ability organization, yet did not have the vital permit, and that the agreement was in this manner illicit and void under the Talent Agencies Act, san diego suit legal counselor Cal. Lab. Code § 1700 et seq. The preliminary court denied the movement. The jury found for offended party, however the preliminary court allowed litigant's movement for another preliminary. The court of allure turned around the new preliminary request and reestablished the decision. Endless supply of the attitude of the court of advances, the new ...
Read more

Defendants football team and individuals sought review of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Image
 Procedural Posture  Respondents, football crew and people, looked for survey of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied their appeal to force intervention with offended party football player. Respondents affirmed its aggregate bartering understanding fell inside the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 301(a) and that mediation ought to have been constrained.  Outline  Respondents, football crew and people, looked for survey of the lower court's choice denying their request to urge mediation with offended party football player, guaranteeing that assertion ought to have been constrained on the grounds that its aggregate haggling understanding fell inside the Labor Management Relations Act (the LMRA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 301(a). The not set in stone that the agreement didn't meet the base degrees of trustworthiness standard. On survey, the court switched, California prosecution lawyer tracking down that government considerable law admin...
Read more