California Ass'n of Professional Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RAYE, J.
In this appeal we consider whether the Legislature ran afoul of the supermajority requirement of article XIII A of the California Constitution when it imposed a flat fee per environmental review by the Department of Fish and Game (Fish and Game). More precisely, we must determine whether the exactions imposed by section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code 1 constitute a regulatory fee or a tax.
Determining whether an exaction is a fee or a tax has been a recurring chore since 1978 when the voters in California enacted comprehensive and constitutional tax reform. (Cal. Const., art.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pennell v. City of San JoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- United Business Commission v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Cal. Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.California Supreme Court · 2018
- California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- California Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.