Agnew

Agnew v. State Board of Equalization

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 899·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14077·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10344
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 7, 2005B177558California6,758 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this sales tax refund case a taxpayer who prevailed in litigation against the State Board of Equalization appeals from the court’s denials of his requests for costs and attorney fees. We conclude the taxpayer is entitled to his costs as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment which denies him an award of costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), as possibly augmented by Code of Civil Procedure section 998, and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the judgment and postjudgment orders in all other respects.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Appellant Dan J. Agnew is a resident of Washington State. In 1981 Agnew bought a thoroughbred yearling in Kentucky he named Desert Wine. Before Desert Wine had ever raced, Agnew sold a one-half interest in the horse to Fred Sahadi. They agreed Agnew would manage Desert Wine’s racing career and, if Desert Wine was successful enough to have stallion prospects, Sahadi would then manage the horse’s breeding career at his Cardiff Stud Farm in California.

Desert Wine’s racing career was very successful. Given the horse’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.