§Why CasetextPricing

McCLAIN v. SAV-ON DRUGS

Amicus Curiae Brief of League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties

25 Cited authorities

  1. Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner

    516 U.S. 325 (1996)   Cited 171 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that past decisions were "no longer good law under the Commerce Clause" because "to the extent that [they] evaluated a discriminatory state tax under the Equal Protection Clause, time simply has passed [them] by"

  2. Loeffler v. Target Corp.

    58 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alleged overcollection of tax could not serve as a predicate for a California consumer protection claim when a business acted in conformity with governing taxing statutes

  3. Weatherford v. City of San Rafael

    2 Cal.5th 1241 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 83 times
    Holding the statute does not require the payment of property tax

  4. Coalition v. City of Upland

    3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that we must resolve doubts about the initiative power in its favor and "narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power"

  5. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

    3 Cal.5th 248 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 72 times
    In Jacks, for example, the utility had obtained a right to "construct and use equipment along, over, and under" public roadways to facilitate the distribution of electricity.

  6. Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco

    189 Cal.App.4th 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 45 times
    Making a similar point in denying standing to a local taxpayer to challenge amendment to a payroll tax to which he was not subject

  7. McClain v. Sav-On Drugs

    9 Cal.App.5th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In McClain v. Sav-On Drugs (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 684 (McClain), now under review by our Supreme Court (review granted June 14, 2017, S241471), a division of the Second Appellate District defined the circumstances under which a " Javor -type remedy" may be available but found them not to apply in that case.

  8. Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

    52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 28 times
    Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA

  9. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno

    127 Cal.App.4th 914 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 34 times
    Adopting same test and concluding imposition of fee on renters does not defeat because “article XIII D broadly defines ownership to include rental interests”

  10. City of San Diego v. Shapiro

    228 Cal.App.4th 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    In Shapiro, only the landowners (of hotel properties), who could pass the tax on to their hotel guests, were allowed to vote for the tax.

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  12. Rule 8.488 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.488

    (a) Application This rule applies in writ proceedings in criminal cases in which an entity is the defendant and in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (b)Compliance with rule 8.208 Each party in a civil case and any entity that is a defendant in a criminal case must comply with the requirements of rule 8.208 concerning serving and filing a certificate of interested entities or persons. (c)Placement of certificates (1) The petitioner's certificate must