Civil Rights
Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's action against a county seeking a tax refund claiming that, when she received a life estate interest in a residence, no change in ownership occurred within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a) of the California Constitution to trigger reassessment, judgment of the court of appeals' is reversed where: 1) under governing statutes, plaintiff had to apply for assessment reduction even though her claim presents a pure question of law; 2) the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable; 3) the county is not estopped from relying on plaintiff's failure to exhaust remedies; and 4) there was a change in ownership within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a).
Read Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, No. S158007 [HTML]
Read Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, No. S158007 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed February 4, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Chin
Counsel
For Appellant: Terran T. Steinhart
For Appellee: Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, and Richard E. Girgado, Deputy County Counsel
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.
Sign InCreate an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: