CITY OF SACRAMENTO v. HICKMAN (1967)

Supreme Court of California,In Bank.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. Irene HICKMAN, as Assessor, etc., Respondent.

Sac. 7804.

Decided: June 15, 1967

Joseph E. Coomes, Jr., City Atty., James P. Jackson, Asst. City Atty., and Felix S. Wahrhaftig, Sacramento, for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Ernest P. Goodman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. Hollingshead and Philip W. Marking, Deputy Attys. Gen., amici curiae on behalf of petitioner. Desmond, Miller & Desmond, Bill W. West, Carol Miller, Wilkins & Mix and Brian D. Flynn, Sacramento, for respondent.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent county assessor to comply with Revenue and Taxation Code section 401. Pursuant to a 1965 agreement between the County of Sacramento and petitioner, the latter transferred to respondent the duty to assess all taxable property within its boundaries. (Gov.Code, s 51500 et seq.)

The sole issue is the constitutionality of section 401. The identical question was presented in County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 59 Cal.Rptr. 609, 428 P.2d 593, this day filed. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we hold section 401 to be valid.

The demurrer is overruled. Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed. This order is final forthwith.

MOSK, Associate Justice.

TRAYNOR, C.J., and McCOMB, PETERS, TOBRINER, BURKE and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law