Glidden Co. v. County of Alameda
| Decision Date | 08 April 1970 |
| Citation | 86 Cal.Rptr. 464,5 Cal.App.3d 371 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The GLIDDEN COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant, Respondent and Appellant. Civ. 26350. |
Robert D. Platt, V. Judson Klein, Johnston, Platt, Klein & Horton, Oakland, for appellant.
Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, Joseph P. Bingaman, Deputy County Counsel, County of Alameda, Oakland, for respondent.
In its petition for rehearing the taxpayer urges that the handbook referred to in the opinion--'The Appraisal of Equipment and Inventory' (June 1961)--and a second handbook 'General Appraisal Manual' (June 1964) demonstrate that the assessor's full cash value and the board's full cash value must be identical because the methods of valuation prescribed are the same. The board is authorized and directed to prescribe rules and regulations to govern local boards of equalization when equalizing, and assessors when assessing, and also to prepare and issue instructions to assessors designed to promote uniformity throughout the state. There is evidence to show that the board followed the assessment practices set forth in those handbooks. There is no specific testimony to show that the assessor followed them. Even if it be assumed that he did, it would be enshrining a hypothesis to the exclusion of reality to conclude that two persons applying the same guidelines would arrive at the same absolute figure. The opinion points out that the standards leave room for reasonable differences of opinion. The lacuna in the taxpayer's proof is not cured by reference to the handbooks.
Rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bauer-Schweitzer Malting Co., Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco
...correct any discrepancies in assessments. (Cf. Glidden Company v. County of Alameda (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 371, 379-381, 85 Cal.Rptr. 88, 86 Cal.Rptr. 464.) Those provisions were only effective commencing with the 1967-1968 assessment year (Stats. 1st Ex.Sess.1966, ch. 147, § 103, p. 683; and ......
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
...to establish that a county assessor's assessment is erroneous. (Glidden Company v. County of Alameda, 5 Cal.App.3d 371, 85 Cal.Rptr. 88, 86 Cal.Rptr. 464; Griffith v. County of Los Angeles, 267 Cal.App.2d 837, 73 Cal.Rptr. The argument that the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies ......
-
Pacific Grove-Asilomar Operating Corp. v. County of Monterey
...of L.A., 70 Cal.App.2d 497, 503--504, 161 P.2d 407; Glidden Company v. County of Alameda, 5 Cal.App.3d 371, 378--379, 85 Cal.Rptr. 88, 86 Cal.Rptr. 464.) Where the action involves a question of legality or constitutionality of the assessment and not a question of valuation, the court can tr......
-
American Chemical Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
...decision. Again precedent controls our decision. In Glidden Company v. County of Alameda, 5 Cal.App.3d 371, 85 Cal.Rptr. 88, 86 Cal.Rptr. 464, the Court of Appeal states: '. . . (U)nless it is shown that the 'full cash value of all locally assessable tangible property' as computed by the st......