§Why CasetextPricing

CITIZENS FOR FAIR REU RATES v. CITY OF REDDING

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

22 Cited authorities

  1. White v. Davis

    30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that a public employee has a contractual right to the payment of an earned salary

  2. California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Board

    51 Cal.4th 421 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 70 times
    In Farm Bureau, we considered and rejected a facial challenge to a statutory user fee on certain water rights holders for purposes of supporting the State Water Resources Control Board's Water Rights Division.

  3. Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    15 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th 866, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350, this court addressed the distinction between taxes, which require two-thirds approval, and regulatory fees, which do not.

  4. Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

    37 Cal.4th 685 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that section 66014 covers fees for "zoning and building permits"

  5. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville

    97 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 42 times
    Finding violation of section 6 subdivision (b) where revenue from utility ratepayers' fee would be placed in city's general fund to pay for general governmental services without nexus to cost of the service

  6. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Fresno

    127 Cal.App.4th 914 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 34 times
    Adopting same test and concluding imposition of fee on renters does not defeat because “article XIII D broadly defines ownership to include rental interests”

  7. Brooktrails Twp. Cmty. Servs. Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mendocino Cnty.

    218 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Discussing Prop. 26

  8. Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill

    169 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    Addressing whether owner could challenge city's extension of a previously-adopted growth control ordinance

  9. Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency

    220 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 586, the Court of Appeal concurred with the Legislature's view that ‘water service means more than just supplying water,’ based upon the definition of water provided by the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, and found that actions necessary to provide water can be funded through fees for water service.

  10. Scott v. Common Council

    44 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 39 times

    Docket No. E015306. April 16, 1996. Appeal from Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. SCV13711, Duane M. Lloyd, Judge. COUNSEL Sabo Green, Charles R. Green and Linda M. Chahine for Defendant and Appellant. Garza Reyes and Florentino Garza for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J. The trial court signed a judgment and issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (Common Council) to reinstate and fund two city attorney

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIC § 1   Cited 63 times
    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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. XIIID § 3   Cited 28 times

    (a)No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIIIA. (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIA. (3) Assessments as provided by this article. (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article, fees for

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 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