Air China v. San Mateo Cty.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 6/16/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR AIR CHINA LIMITED, A120971 Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 460878) v. SAN MATEO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent. THE COURT: The petition for rehearing filed by appellant on June 4, 2009, is denied. The opinion filed herein on May 20, 2009, is ordered modified on page 4 to delete the second full paragraph, beginning Here, as a threshold matter . . . and footnote 2, and to substitute the following: Here, the question of whether the County s tax on Air China s possessory interests in landing rights and leasehold improvements at the Airport meets the statutory requirements of section 107 was not disputed in the trial court and is not before us. Air China, however, suggests in its reply brief that the County is prohibited from imposing any property taxes because it does not own any property at the Airport and its use of the terminal space, taxiways, and runways is not exclusive. While it does not make this argument in the context of the exclusivity requirement of section 107, it is well settled that shared use of property with others affects only the valuation of the possessory interest and does not defeat the exclusivity requirement of section 107. (Korean Air Lines Co., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 569.) There is no change in the judgment. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
