City of Atlanta v. HOTELS. COM.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the online travel companies’ money had and received claim failed because they never made a demand for payment
• holding that, “[s]ince the consumer cannot obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the OTC,” that retail rate is the “taxable amount or ‘rent,’” where “rent” means “the consideration received for occupancy valued in money”
• holding that, “[sjince the consumer cannot obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the OTC,” that retail rate is the “taxable amount or ‘rent,’ ” where “rent” means “the consideration received for occupancy valued in money”
• affirming grant of summary judgment to defendants because the plaintiff did not make a demand for payment
• affirming lower court's decision to grant summary judgment on money had and received claim where the plaintiff conceded it did not make any demand for payment
• finding that a tax on “ ‘the consideration received for occupancy’ ” applied to “the retail amount paid for occupancy by someone who will occupy the room,” as the consumer could not occupy the room without paying the OTC’s retail room rate (emphasis in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).