§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES

Respondents’ Answer Brief on the Merits

36 Cited authorities

  1. People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 563 times

    S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief

  2. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 828 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"

  3. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 518 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule

  4. Hess v. Ford Motor Company

    27 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 283 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of mistake cannot be used to create a new contract between the parties

  5. California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist.

    28 Cal.3d 692 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 475 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, our Supreme Court construed identical language in section 45025's predecessor, former section 13503.1.

  6. E.P.I. Center v. C.F.F.P

    44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR

  7. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 120 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  8. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization

    51 Cal.2d 640 (Cal. 1959)   Cited 443 times
    In Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization, 51 Cal.2d 640, the court states at pages 645, 646 [ 335 P.2d 672]: "It [i.e. the definition of sale quoted] coincides with the common-law definition of a `sale' and is substantially the same as that used in the Uniform Sales Act.

  9. Gould v. Gould

    245 U.S. 151 (1917)   Cited 478 times
    Holding that "[i]n the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out."

  10. Prouty v. Gores Tech. Group

    121 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 117 times
    Finding that where two companies included a specific provision granting rights to one company's employees that “expressly benefit[ted] them, and only them,” this specific provision was an exception to the contract's general no-third-party beneficiaries provision

  11. Section 2

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIC § 2   Cited 49 times
    Providing that "[n]o local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote"

  12. Section 2344 - Surrender of thing received for benefit of principal

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2344   Cited 11 times

    If an agent receives anything for the benefit of his principal, to the possession of which another person is entitled, he must, on demand, surrender it to such person, or so much of it as he has under his control at the time of demand, on being indemnified for any advance which he has made to his principal, in good faith, on account of the same; and is responsible therefor, if, after notice from the owner, he delivers it to his principal. Ca. Civ. Code § 2344 Enacted 1872.

  13. Section 2777 - Liability of one who indemnifies another against acts to be done by latter

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2777   Cited 10 times

    One who indemnifies another against an act to be done by the latter, is liable jointly with the person indemnified, and separately, to every person injured by such act. Ca. Civ. Code § 2777 Enacted 1872.

  14. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,093 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  15. Rule 8.532 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision

    Cal. R. 8.532   Cited 73 times

    (a)Filing the decision The clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly file all opinions and orders issued by the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018.) (b) Finality of decision (1) Except as provided in (2), a Supreme Court decision is final 30 days after filing unless: (A) The court orders a shorter period; or (B) Before the 30-day period or any extension

  16. Rule 3.505 - Appellate review

    Cal. R. 3.505

    (a) Coordination order to specify reviewing court If the actions to be coordinated are within the jurisdiction of more than one reviewing court, the coordination motion judge must select and the order granting a petition for coordination must specify, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 404.2, the court having appellate jurisdiction of the coordinated actions. (b) Court for review of order granting or denying coordination A petition for a writ relating to an order granting or denying