Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

25 CAL.4TH 508, 22 P.3D 324, 106 CAL.RPTR.2D 548, 2001.CA.0000340 , 1 CAL. DAILY OP. SERV. 3851, 2001 DAILY JOURNAL D.A.R. 4703

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs complaint against the County of Contra Costa (the County) on the ground that the action was time-barred by Government Code section 946.6. In opposition to the demurrer, plaintiff claimed he substantially complied with section 946.6 and argued that the County was estopped from disputing timeliness of the action. Although the complaint was filed beyond the time limit of section 946.6, plaintiffs estoppel argument raised a factual issue inappropriate for determination on demurrer. We conclude the plaintiff should have had an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege equitable estoppel and accordingly reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2001
May 14
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
52
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
94.8
KB

More Books by California Supreme Court

Bonds v. Bonds Bonds v. Bonds
2000
People V. Kraft People V. Kraft
2000
People V. Carpenter People V. Carpenter
1999
Conservatorship of Valerie N. Conservatorship of Valerie N.
1985
City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency
2000
Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc. Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc.
1999