In the U.S. Supreme Court case regarding property assessments, what was the key distinction between West Virginia and California?

The key distinction between West Virginia and California in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court case regarding property assessments lies in the compliance with state law. In the case being discussed, the Supreme Court examined how property assessments were conducted in these two states and noted that West Virginia's assessment practices were in compliance with its state law requirements, which specified a certain method for valuing properties. In contrast, California's system was found to deviate from its legal standards, leading to unequal assessments and potential violations of property owners' rights. This distinction underscored the importance of adherence to state laws governing property assessments, as failure to comply can lead to legal challenges and disputes over fairness and equality in taxation.

The other options, though relevant in different contexts, did not highlight the legal compliance aspect that was central to the Supreme Court's evaluation and decision-making process in this particular case. The method of assessment, economic conditions, and population density are all important factors in property assessment discussions, but they did not provide the crucial legal framework that defined the distinct cases in West Virginia and California.