Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin (1912) · DecisionDepot

Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Nov 13, 1912 No. L. A. No. 3345Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the thirty-day statutory deadline for filing a protest against the taxation of operative property is jurisdictional, rendering a late-filed protest ineffective and precluding mandamus relief.

Issues

Whether the thirty-day statutory period for filing a protest against the taxation of operative property is jurisdictional.
Whether mandamus lies to compel the state board to dispose of a protest filed after the statutory deadline.

Disposition. Application for writ of mandate denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest "shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional.”

“A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action”

Synopsis

Taxation—Assessment bt State Board of Equalization of Operative Property of Bailroad—Protest by City Assessor—Limitation of Time to Make Protest—Mandamus.—Under the provisions of the act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 538), any protest by a city assessor against the taxation by the state board of equalization of certain property of a railroad company as operative property must be filed within thirty days after Ms receipt of the company’s report, which that act requires to be served on him. Such requirement is jurisdictional, and a protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the assessment-roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make any order disposing of a belated protest is not a breach of duty, and mandamus will not lie to compel the entry of such order.

THE COURT. The city assessor of Los Angeles did not file any protest against the taxation of the property in question as operative property of the Pacific Electric Railway Company until more than thirty days after he had received the copy of the company’s report which the law requires to be served upon him. The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest "shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional. A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make, any order disposing of the protest is, therefore, not a breach of duty and mandamus will not lie to com[156]pel the entry of such order. Its act placing such property on the roll as operative property is as valid as if the belated protest had not been filed.

For these reasons the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief