Appellant sought review of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) decision denying appellant a business tax refund paid to appellee city and granting appellees a recovery of taxes from appellant for the succeeding years. What are the requirements of business incorporation attorney.
Appellant, a licensed insurance agent and broker, sued appellees for a business tax refund and appellees filed a cross-complaint to recover unpaid taxes. The trial court denied appellant a refund and granted appellees recovery of tax assessments, holding that Los Angeles, Cal., Mun. Code §§ 21.03 and 21.190 were valid, enforceable, and a constitutional exercise of appellees’ revenue raising power. The appellate court affirmed, holding that since an insurance broker was an independent contractor, it did not share the insurance agent exemption under Cal. Const. art. XIII, § 28(f). Furthermore, the court held that Los Angeles, Cal., Mun. Code §§ 21.03 and 21.190 were nondiscriminatory tax ordinances imposed on persons doing business in California that were not violative of state and federal equal protection laws. Finally, it held that §§ 21.03 and 21.190 were a valid exercise of the home rule revenue raising power since the state did not intend to occupy the field.
The court affirmed the judgment denying appellant a business tax refund and granting appellee recovery of unpaid taxes, holding that since there were reasonable distinctions between insurance agents and brokers, the tax was nondiscriminatory, and holding that the tax was a valid exercise of the home rule revenue raising power since the state did not occupy the field.
Appellant client challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County (California) in favor of respondent detective in the detective’s action for payment for personal services.
Property was stolen from the client and the client hired an attorney to assist in the prosecution of the perpetrator. The attorney hired the detective to perform investigations related to the prosecution, and the detective brought an action against the attorney to recover payment for his services. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the detective, and the client sought review. The court affirmed, holding that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 283 only allowed the client to be bound in any steps of an action by the attorney’s agreement filed with the clerk or entered in the minutes of the court. Because the attorney’s agency existed in parol, the attorney was entitled to establish the authority to hire the detective by testimony as to the scope of his agency.
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the detective.