City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUVOLO, J.
I
Introduction
Respondent and cross-appellant Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. (Flying Dutchman) provides commercial parking and valet parking services alleged by appellant and cross-respondent City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) to be subject to its parking tax (S.F. Mun. Code, §§ 601-615). The parking tax imposes a tax of 25 percent (§§ 602, 602.5) on “rent” paid for “occupancy” of a space for parking a motor vehicle in a “parking station” (§§ 601, 602A).
CCSF’s appeal arises out of a successful defense by Flying Dutchman to an enforcement action brought by CCSF to collect in…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gregory v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Regan v. Taxation With Representation of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pennell v. City of San JoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Saenz v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- County Sanitation District No. 2 v. County of KernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Batt v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- City of Santa Cruz v. PatelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- City & County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.