Opinion ID: 1262044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 1a IS THE LEGALITY OF THE TAX AT ISSUE?

Text: (2) A judgment of dismissal after a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend will be affirmed if proper on any grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the court acted on that ground. (See E.L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 504 and fn. 2 [146 Cal. Rptr. 614, 579 P.2d 505]; Weinstock v. Eissler (1964) 224 Cal. App.2d 212, 225 [36 Cal. Rptr. 537].) A general demurrer searches the complaint for all defects going to the existence of a cause of action and places at issue the legal merits of the action on assumed facts. (See Banerian v. O'Malley (1974) 42 Cal. App.3d 604, 610-611 [116 Cal. Rptr. 919]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleadings, § 802, p. 2415.) (1b) The court here sustained the demurrer on the ground, among others, that the third amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); see also § 472d.) Further, the rule that on appeal a litigant may not argue theories for the first time does not apply to pure questions of law. ( Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742 [336 P.2d 534].) All parties and numerous amici urge that we resolve the Proposition 13 issue. [3] We conclude that the merits of that question are properly before us.