Legal Opinion

City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 9, 2004No. A102026PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Gregory v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Regan v. Taxation With Representation of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Pennell v. City of San JoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Saenz v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. County Sanitation District No. 2 v. County of KernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Batt v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. City of Santa Cruz v. PatelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. City & County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API