§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES

Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Review

25 Cited authorities

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,294 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

  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. People v. Majors

    18 Cal.4th 385 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 492 times
    Finding instructional error harmless in part based on text of verdict form

  4. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    590 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that OTCs are not operators as they do not physically control, furnish, supply, or provide the rooms they advertise and take no part in making these rooms physically available

  5. Agnew v. California State Board of Equalization

    21 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 116 times
    Discussing the validity of the State Board of Equalization's policy requiring payments on delinquent taxes and accrued interest on taxes

  6. Pitt County v. Hotels.com

    553 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that an online travel company is not a retailer within the plain meaning of General Statutes, section 105–164.4

  7. City of Columbus v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    693 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding denial of certification proper after issues to be certified were resolved in a prior opinion on a motion to dismiss

  8. St. Louis County v. Prestige Travel, Inc.

    344 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. 2011)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that online travel companies are not engaged in the business of operating a hotel or motel, that they do not provide sleeping rooms, and that the money they retain as compensation is for facilitating a reservation, not providing a room

  9. City of Houston v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    357 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Finding " 'the cost of occupancy of any room furnished by any hotel' " did not include the OTC's markup (quoting Houston (TX) Code of Ordinances § 44-102 (eff. Jan. 1, 1991))

  10. Alachua Cnty. v. Expedia, Inc.

    110 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that the OTCs' fees are not subject to taxation because "the difference between the fees they charge their customers, and what the hotels require be paid to place a customer in a room, is not ‘solely for the use or possession’ of the hotel room" but rather "for advertising hotel facilities, setting up internet websites, and forwarding and assisting in the making of reservations on behalf of hotel customers"

  11. Section 404 - Petition for coordination when actions sharing common question pending in different courts

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404   Cited 109 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing coordination

  12. 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"

  13. Section 404.1 - When coordination appropriate

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the role of such a judge

  14. Section 404.7 - Rules for practice and procedure for coordination

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404.7   Cited 11 times
    Authorizing the Judicial Council to provide by rule the practice and procedure for coordination of civil actions

  15. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,840 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  16. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  17. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

  18. Rule 3.504 - General law applicable

    Cal. R. 3.504   Cited 3 times

    (a) General law applicable Except as otherwise provided in the rules in this chapter, all provisions of law applicable to civil actions generally apply to an action included in a coordination proceeding. (b) Rules prevail over conflicting general provisions of law To the extent that the rules in this chapter conflict with provisions of law applicable to civil actions generally, the rules in this chapter prevail, as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 404.7. (c) Manner of proceeding may be