§Why CasetextPricing

CITIZENS FOR FAIR REU RATES v. CITY OF REDDING

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Taxpayers Association

20 Cited authorities

  1. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 582 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  2. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 828 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"

  3. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 120 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  4. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson

    11 Cal.4th 1243 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 115 times
    Rejecting Legislature's stated claim that a statute merely clarified the scope of an initiative

  5. Strauss v. Horton

    46 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that married couples' rights vest upon a lawful marriage

  6. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers

    29 Cal.3d 252 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that funding restrictions violate California privacy and due process guarantees

  7. City of Emeryville v. Cohen

    233 Cal.App.4th 293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 31 times
    In Emeryville, DOF asserted that it did not matter that Emeryville reentered into the subject agreements prior to the passage of AB 1484 because that law authorized DOF to refuse to recognize as enforceable any agreements between a successor agency and another party. (Emeryville, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 308.)

  8. Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano

    235 Cal.App.4th 1493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Capistrano, the water district conceded that its tiered pricing did not reflect increased costs and that it "effectively used revenues from the top tiers to subsidize below-cost rates for the bottom tier."

  9. California Trout v. St. Water Resources Ctrl. Bd.

    207 Cal.App.3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 35 times
    In California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Bd., 207 Cal.App.3d 585 (Cal.Ct.App. 1989), the court considered appeals from the dismissal of petitions for writs of mandate to compel the Water Resources Board to rescind two water appropriation licenses issued to Los Angeles, which allowed the diversion of water by means of dams from four creeks.

  10. People v. Petrilli

    226 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    A131141 2014-05-28 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven PETRILLI, Defendant and Appellant. See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Witnesses, § 189. Trial Court: San Francisco City and County Superior Court; Trial Judge: Hon. Newton J. Lam. (No. 204890-01/02362614) Margulies See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Witnesses, § 189. Trial Court: San Francisco City and County Superior Court; Trial Judge: Hon. Newton J. Lam. (No. 204890-01/02362614) Janice M. Lagerlof, under appointment

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIII § 1   Cited 206 times

    Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States: (a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax

  12. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIC § 1   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Exempting from the definition of tax " charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof"

  13. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. XIII § 3   Cited 61 times

    The following are exempt from property taxation: (a) Property owned by the State. (b) Property owned by a local government, except as otherwise provided in Section 11(a). (c) Bonds issued by the State or a local government in the State. (d) Property used for libraries and museums that are free and open to the public and property used exclusively for public schools, community colleges, state colleges, and state universities. (e) Buildings, land, equipment, and securities used exclusively for educational

  14. Section 6

    Cal. Const. art. XIIID § 6   Cited 40 times

    (a)Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or