Legal Opinion

City of Oakland v. Digre

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 14, 1988No. A042876PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LOW, P. J.

In this case, we hold that Oakland’s Neighborhood Services Retention Act of 1988, a flat-fee “parcel tax” designed to raise revenue for the support of municipal services, is a non-ad valorem general property tax prohibited by article XIII, section 1 of the California Constitution. In so doing, we only invalidate the tax ordinance before us. We do not hold that a flat-fee parcel tax must necessarily be considered a property tax.

The Neighborhood Services Retention Act was submitted for voter approval as “Measure M” in the June 7, 1988, primary election. The proposed tax was…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. County of Sacramento v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. In Re TartarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. City and County of San Francisco v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  5. California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Neilson v. City of California CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Neecke v. City of Mill ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Thomas v. City of East Palo AltoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. Centex Real Estate Corp. v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API