§Why CasetextPricing

JACKS v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

Appellant's Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

6 Cited authorities

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

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 119 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  2. Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

    49 Cal.4th 277 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 49 times
    Finding Government Code section 53753, enacted specifically to address the balloting scheme for assessments adopted under article XIII D, section 4, was persuasive on the question whether such ballots must be voted on in secret in accordance with article II, section 7

  3. City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas Electric Co.

    82 Cal.App.4th 1167 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 26 times

    H019427 Filed August 8, 2000 Certified for Publication Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. 128936, Hon. Samuel S. Stevens. Cotchett, Pitre Simon, Frank M. Pitre and Nancy Finerman, Ruby Schofield, Allen Ruby and Glen W. Schofield, Paul Meltzer and Rose Braz for Appellants. Heller, Ehrman, White McAuliffe, M. Laurence Popofsky and Kirk Werner Hoge, Fenton, Jones Appel, Charles H. Brock and Robert S. Luther, J. Michael Reidenbach and Richard L. Meiss for Respondent. ELIA, J. The

  4. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

    234 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   1 Legal Analyses

    2d Civil No. B253474 02-26-2015 Rolland JACKS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, Defendant and Respondent. Huskinson, Brown & Heidenreich, David W.T. Brown, and Paul E. Heidenreich, Redondo Beach, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Ariel Pierre Calonne, City Attorney, Tom R. Shapiro, Assistant City Attorney; Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, Oakland, Benjamin P. Fay, Rick W. Jarvis and Andrea Saltzman, Berkeley, for Defendant and Respondent. Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Los

  5. County of Tulare v. City of Dinuba

    188 Cal. 664 (Cal. 1922)   Cited 46 times
    Stating that a franchise fee “is purely a matter of contract”

  6. Section 6201 - Title of chapter

    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 6201   Cited 7 times

    This chapter may be cited as the Franchise Act of 1937. Ca. Pub. Util. Code § 6201 Enacted by Stats. 1951, Ch. 674.