§Why CasetextPricing

CITIZENS FOR FAIR REU RATES v. CITY OF REDDING

Respondent’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

29 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. Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley

    60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 112 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Remanding for reconsideration in light of clarified legal principles

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

    51 Cal.4th 421 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 71 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.

  4. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering

    18 Cal.3d 190 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting federal functional equivalent test in light of enactment of section 21080.5

  5. 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.

  6. Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist.

    32 Cal.4th 409 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Richmond, supra, 32 Cal.4th 409, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121, 83 P.3d 518, our Supreme Court held "a charge that a local water district imposed as a condition of making a new connection to the water system, and that the district used to finance capital improvements to the water system," was not subject to article XIII D's restrictions, as the district did not "impose the capacity charge on real property as such, but on individuals who apply for new service connections."

  7. 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

  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. Saathoff v. City of San Diego

    35 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 55 times

    Docket No. D019329. May 31, 1995. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 633591, Judith L. Haller, Judge. COUNSEL Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler Klevens, Joel N. Klevens and Mia Darbonne Farber for Plaintiff and Appellant. John W. Witt, City Attorney, and C. Alan Sumption, Chief Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Peterson Price, Paul A. Peterson and Larry N. Murnane for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. OPINION HUFFMAN, J. Ronald L. Saathoff appeals from a judgment

  10. 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

  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. XIIIA § 3   Cited 24 times

    (a) Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed. (b) As used in this section, "tax" means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, except the following: (1) A charge imposed for a specific

  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