Legal Opinion

City of Pasadena v. AT&T Communications of California, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 19, 2002No. B154482PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BOREN, P. J.

This appeal addresses the meaning of the word “remit” in the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC). We conclude, as a matter of law, that to “remit” a tax payment means to send, transmit, or forward money. A payment is thus remitted when it is deposited in the mail. The trial court defined remit as “receive.” We reverse.

Facts

The City of Pasadena (the City) is suing AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (the Company), for breach of a services agreement. As a service supplier, the Company is required to collect a utility users tax from its customers. Each month, the Company pays…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of BondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Curle v. Superior Court of Shasta CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Hodges v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSN. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Pope v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Pope v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API