§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF SAN JOSE (AFFORDABLE HOUSING NETWORK OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY)

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

19 Cited authorities

  1. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 293 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  2. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash

    461 U.S. 540 (1983)   Cited 608 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress could exercise its spending power to prohibit tax-exempt organizations from lobbying because organizations were free to create separate affiliates which could receive private funds to support lobbying efforts

  3. Action v. City of Santa Monica

    41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 456 times
    Recognizing exceptions to the litigation privilege when the statute is more specific than the litigation privilege and would be significantly or wholly inoperable if its enforcement were barred when in conflict with the privilege

  4. Hensler v. City of Glendale

    8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"

  5. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian

    48 Cal.3d 805 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 249 times
    Holding that a statute that passed the federal test did not violate either the federal or state Constitutions

  6. Fisher v. City of Berkeley

    37 Cal.3d 644 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 224 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rent withholding procedures

  7. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City

    12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 118 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the requirement to provide art or a cash equivalent is more akin to traditional land use regulations imposing minimal building setbacks, parking and lighting conditions, landscaping requirements, and other design conditions such as color schemes, building materials and architectural amenities. Such . . . conditions have long been held to be valid exercises of the city's traditional police power, and do not amount to a taking merely because they might incidentally . . . impose a cost in connection with the property."

  8. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco

    27 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 89 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the "HCO is generally applicable legislation in that it applies, without discretion or discrimination, to every residential hotel in the city" and that "no meaningful government discretion enters into either the imposition or the calculation of the in lieu fee"

  9. Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 58 times
    Denying a takings challenge to rent control, stating “[t]he modern view is ‘that a legitimate and rational goal of price or rate regulation is the protection of consumer welfare’ … irrespective of the existence of an emergency” and asking rhetorically “[h]ow long would a court, or a litigant, have to wait to give the law a ‘fair chance’ to work before declaring that it is a failure and therefore unconstitutional?”

  10. Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto

    57 Cal.4th 1193 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sterling Park