Legal Opinion
The Pines v. City of Santa Monica
California Supreme Court
Decided July 16, 1981No. L.A. 31338PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NEWMAN, J.
Plaintiffs, eight condominium developers, challenge the validity of the Santa Monica Condominium Tax Law and seek refund of taxes paid in the amount of $138,000 plus interest. The ordinance imposes a one-time charge of $1,000 per salable unit.
The trial court ruled that the tax was invalid because subdivision development and construction are matters of statewide concern, preempted by the Subdivision Map Act (Map Act) (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.). We do not agree.
The ordinance (Santa Monica Mun. Code, art. VI, ch. 6B, § 6650 et seq.) is called a “condominium business license…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Bishop v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- In Re LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Ayres v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- B & P DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. City of SaratogaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho MirageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.