in tax legislation.” (City of Berkeley v. Cukierman, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1344; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., supra, 301 U.S. 495, 509 [57 S.Ct. 868, 872]; Cohan v. Alvord, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 184; Henry’s Restaurants of Pomona, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1016 [106 Cal.Rptr. 867].) Inequalities, which arise from the singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation. (Carmichael, supra, 301 U.S. at p. 509 [57 S.Ct. at p. 872].) Differing tax rates may be imposed upon different classes provided the classification created is reasonable. (See United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 178 [154 Cal.Rptr. 263].) Further, n Cal.App.3d 351 [245 Cal.Rptr. 916] (<HOLDING>). 4 Dr. David Bums, a University of California
holding that postverdict interest is a cost of defense under the terms of an insurance contract similarly worded to the contracts in the instant litigation holding that the plaintiff has established temporal proximity when the plaintiff engaged in protected activity on june 23 1988 and the defendant terminated the plaintiff on august 1 1988 holding a proposed ballot initiative the insurance cost control initiative of 1988 violated the singlesubject rule holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage holding that under  1988 consideration of the results obtained relative to the relief requested is required