Legal Opinion
Thomas v. City of East Palo Alto
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 26, 1997No. A073656PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERSON, P. J.
In this appeal, we conclude the trial court correctly ruled that the City of East Palo Alto (the City) had unconstitutionally imposed and collected a property tax not apportioned according to value, as is required by article XIII, section 1 of the California Constitution (section 1).
In City of Oakland v. Digre (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 99, 102-103 [252 Cal.Rptr. 99] (Digre), this court (Division Five) held, per Presiding Justice Low, that a similar parcel tax imposed by the City of Oakland to fund its general municipal services was unconstitutional under section 1, because…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Woosley v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Rider v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- City of Glendale v. TrondsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Ingels v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- In Re Deborah C.California Supreme Court · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Neilson v. City of California CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Batt v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- State ex rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.