Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. v. William M. Bennett, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, Individually and Asmembers Of, and Martin Huff, Individually, and as Executive Officer Of, Thefranchise Tax Board, State of California, Emi Limited v. William M. Bennett, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, Individually and Asmembers Of, and Martin Huff, Individually and as Executive Officer Of, Thefranchise Tax Board, State of California

Good Law

681 F.2d 1107

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 22, 198280-4113California8,781 words

Opinion

681 F.2d 1107 CAPITOL INDUSTRIES-EMI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William M. BENNETT, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, individually and asmembers of, and Martin Huff, individually, and as Executive Officer of, theFranchise Tax Board, State of California, Defendants-Appellees. EMI LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William M. BENNETT, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, individually and asmembers of, and Martin Huff, individually and as Executive Officer of, theFranchise Tax Board, State of California, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 80-4113, 80-4114. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 15, 1981. Decided Feb. 16, 1982. As Amended July 22, 1982. 1 Valentine Brookes, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Lawrence V. Brookes, Brookes & Brookes, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. 2 Charles C. Kobayashi, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellees. 3 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4 Before WALLACE and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, * District Judge. WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge: 5 This appeal involves two companion cases brought by an United Kingdom…

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.

Parties

Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc.
Plaintiff
William M. Bennett, Kenneth Cory, Richard Silberman, Individually and Asmembers Of, and Martin Huff, Individually, and
Defendant

Cites (51)

681 F.2d 1107
429 U.S. 68
319 U.S. 293
629 F.2d 1307
494 F.2d 364
284 U.S. 521
348 F.2d 9
262 F.2d 626
115 F.2d 768
347 U.S. 984
35 Cal. 2d 80
118 Cal. App. 3d 994
463 F.2d 21
262 U.S. 413
441 U.S. 434
103 Cal. App. 3d 590
491 F. Supp. 42
23 Cal. 3d 638
143 F.2d 733
210 F.2d 259
208 F. Supp. 485
149 F. Supp. 18
282 F. 620
202 F.2d 503
209 U.S. 123
337 U.S. 682
367 F. Supp. 107
434 U.S. 452
415 U.S. 651
519 F.2d 961
50 L. Ed. 2d 744
323 U.S. 459
660 F.2d 1345
322 U.S. 47
420 U.S. 308
522 F.2d 1120
401 U.S. 82
347 F.2d 194
320 F.2d 476
478 F.2d 456
342 U.S. 299
96 L. Ed. 335
326 U.S. 620
235 F.2d 481
283 U.S. 123
27 Cal. 2d 705
90 L. Ed. 1603
438 U.S. 781
424 U.S. 800
30 Cal. 2d 472
10 Cal. App. 3d 496