Plaintiff theater corporation (theater) appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California) that was entered in favor of defendants, city and city officers, in an action to enjoin the enforcement of a city license tax ordinance.

A theater challenged the trial court judgment entered in favor of the city and city officers in the theater's action to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance imposing a theater admission license tax. The theater claimed that the license tax constituted an impermissible double tax under Cal. Const. art. XIII and was imposed in a discriminatory manner. The employer defense affirmed the judgment, concluding that the license did not constitute a double tax because art XIII applied to property and was inapplicable when a municipality imposed a license for the purpose of regulation of revenue. The court observed that the mere fact that a business was required to pay regulatory taxes under the police power and also pay additional property taxes for the purpose of revenue under another ordinance did not render the ordinances void on the grounds of double taxation which did not apply to excises. The court explained that the city ordinance was an authorized levy and collection of license taxes for conducting business within the city. The court further found absent a city charter provision prohibiting such a levy, the license tax was a substantive and procedurally valid exercise of municipal police power.

The court affirmed the trial court judgment sustaining the imposition and enforcement of a theater admission license tax ordinance against the theater corporation by the city and the city officers.

Appellant license holder sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which granted respondent license competitors and respondent attorney's motions for summary judgment in an action which sought recovery for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and interference with economic relations growing out of a radio broadcasting license dispute.

The parties disputed over a radio station broadcasting license. Appellant license holder had a license for an assigned frequency and respondent license competitors wanted the same frequency. After a comparative hearing under 47 U.S.C.S. 309, and a dismissed appeal, appellant's license was renewed. Appellant then filed an action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and interference with economic relations against respondent license competitors and related attorneys. As to respondent attorneys, the appeal was dismissed because no appealable judgment existed. The trial court granted respondent license competitors motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed because malicious prosecution required the initiation of an action against appellant, and the filing of a competing license application was not an action against appellant. Abuse of process required an improper use of the courts, and the Federal Communications Commission, as an administrative agency, was not a court. Interference with economic relations required economic relations, and appellants' pleadings contained no allegation of any contract or relationship that was interfered with.

The Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of respondent license competitors because appellant license holders' complaint failed to state a cause of action arising out of the licensing process for any of the three pleaded claims, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and interference with economic relationship. The appeal as against the respondent attorney's was dismissed because there was no judgment to appeal from in the record.