Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The county's sale of plaintiff's condo at a tax sale to collect delinquent taxes plaintiff owed.  The sale netted a sum greater than the taxes owed.  The county kept the surplus sale proceeds.  That was a taking of plaintiff's property that violated the Fifth Amendment even though state law allowed the county to keep the surplus.  To determine the scope… Read More

California's requirement that charitable organizations disclose to the attorney general Schedule B to their Form 990 filing with the IRS--a schedule that lists the organization's major donors--violates the First Amendment.  The disclosure causes a major intrusion on the donor's First Amendment right to freedom of association and is not justified by the public interest in preventing fraud or other wrongs… Read More

A private citizen group of taxpayers had taxpayer standing under CCP 526a to sue the District Attorney seeking an injunction to stop his office's confidential informant program, the principal aim of which was to secure confessions from criminal defendants in violation of their constitutional rights.  The suit was brought by taxpayers to enjoin waste of public funds on an illegal… Read More

Under the Commerce Clause, the states’ power to impose sales taxes on sellers is limited only by the requirement of a substantial nexus to the taxing state; the seller’s physical presence in the state is no longer required for the imposition of sales tax. Read More

The California Constitution does not restrict the voters’ ability to impose or increase taxes by initiative measures, even though some restrictions do apply to local governments seeking to do the same.   Read More

Nevada correctly allowed its citizen to sue California's Franchise Tax Board in Nevada state court, since it need not apply California law immunizing the Franchise Tax Board from such suits; but it was wrong to allow its citizen to collect more than $50,000 in damages from California's agency, when Nevada law prohibits damage awards in that amount against Nevada's own… Read More