City of Palmdale v. Board of Equalization

Good Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719·206 Cal. App. 4th 329
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 2012No. B232833California4,802 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mallano, J.

In this appeal from the granting of a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, the parties have filed a motion to settle the case pursuant to a stipulation requiring that we vacate the trial court’s judgment and reinstate the agency’s decision. We deny the motion for vacatur because the interests of the public would be adversely affected if the judgment were vacated.

In particular, the judgment faults a state agency—which allocates local sales tax revenues among cities and hears taxpayer appeals concerning corporate and personal income taxes—for rendering a decision without due regard for the statutory and constitutional laws that govern its decisionmaking. The agency’s decisions affect the fiscal condition of California and its subdivisions and the finances of state taxpayers. To vacate the judgment and reinstate the agency’s decision would not only imply the agency acted properly, it would also undermine the effectiveness of the judgment in exposing the agency’s deficiencies in handling the administrative appeal. Unless and until reversal on appeal, the judgment should remain intact as a reminder to the agency that it must comply with the laws that restrict its…

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.