CHIATELLO

CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169·189 Cal. App. 4th 472·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1811
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 2010A126234California12,077 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richman, J.

This court has repeatedly recognized that “money is the lifeblood of modem government. Money comes primarily from taxes, and, as the importance of a predictable income stream from taxes has grown, governments at all levels have established procedures to minimize disruptions” that would interfere with essential public operations. (Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65, 71 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 ] (Batt); see Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1135-1136 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 ] (Flying Dutchman); Helms Bakeries v. St. Bd. Equalization (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 417, 421 [ 128 P.2d 167 ].) This principle is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a constitutional prohibition on any “legal or equitable process ... to prevent or enjoin the collection of any tax” (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 32 (article Xm, section 32)), reinforced by numerous statutes to the same effect. In Daar v. Alvord (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 480 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 658 ], the Court of Appeal held that an action aimed at challenging and halting the collection of a local property tax could not evade these prohibitions by being framed as one…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.