Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CITY OF STOCKTON et al. v. WEST COAST THEATRES, Inc., OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA et al.
Here we have a city ordinance levying a tax for revenue similar to that involved in Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of Bakersfield, Cal., 222 P.2d 879.
Like in the Bakersfield case, the City of Stockton, plaintiff has a basic business license ordinance No. 985 which classifies the businesses conducted in Stockton and levies a license tax for revenue purposes on them based on various standards. Section 97, imposes a tax on the theatre business of $32 per 100 seats are annum where there are less than 300 seats and a graduated scale on seating capacity over that number. That section of the ordinance was amended in 1947, by ordinance 1972 increasing the tax on theatre but still measuring the tax by seating capacity. Between those two ordinances, ordinance No. 1743 was enacted and approved by referendum. It is that ordinance whose validity is questioned.
It provides that it is enacted ‘solely to raise revenue’ and is ‘in addition’ to the taxes levied under ordinance No. 985; that persons carrying on basketball, football, softball, or baseball games where an admission is charged shall pay a tax of two cents for each ticket sold (Sec 20). Also included are boxing and wrestling exhibitions (Sec. 21), circus or similar exhibitions (Sec. 22), public dance halls (Sec. 23), ice or rollerskating rinks (Sec. 24), museum, store show, theatrical or vaudeville performances (Sec. 25), concert halls (Sec. 26) and theatres (Sec. 27). Exceptions are made for admission paid by persons in military service (Sec. 29) and children under 12 (Sec. 29 1/2).
The same constitutional objections are made to this ordinance as were made in the Bakersfield case and on the authority of the latter case, the judgment declaring such ordinance valid is affirmed.
CARTER, Justice.
GIBSON, C. J., and SHENK, TRAYNOR, SCHAUER and SPENCE, JJ., concur. EDMONDS, J., concurs in the judgment.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Sac. 6102.
Decided: October 06, 1950
Court: Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)