QUIZ Name: N ay Goncu Case: Sheraton Hotel Corporation v. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania [1985) Pittsburg enacted an ordinance that made it unlawful for any hotel to exclude any licensed taxicab driver from picking up passengers at hotel taxicab stands even if the stands were on hotel property. The Sheraton was dissatisfied with the quality of service provided by some taxicab drivers and with the cleanliness of some of their vehicles. It wanted to require cab drivers to obtain permits and pay an annual fee to use the hotel's taxicab stand. The city's attorney was consulted about these plans and ruled that they violated the Taxicab Act. 1. What reasoning would the city offer in defense of its law? 2. What reasoning would the hotel offer in support of its contention that the city was actually taking its property right without paying (in violation of the 5'1' Amendment)