§Why CasetextPricing

SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Amicus Curiae Brief of City of Signal Hill

26 Cited authorities

  1. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 585 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  2. Wickard v. Filburn

    317 U.S. 111 (1942)   Cited 914 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce"

  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. 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.

  5. Bighorn-Desert v. Verjil

    39 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that rates based on usage were not subject to Proposition 218

  6. Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    24 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 719, 14 P.3d 930 (Apartment Association), our Supreme Court considered whether an inspection fee imposed on owners of residential rental properties violated article XIII D. The fee, measured at $12 per unit per year, was imposed by the City of Los Angeles on " ‘[o]wners of all buildings subject to inspection,’ " which in turn included " ‘all residential rental properties with two or more dwelling units on the same lot’ " with certain exceptions.

  7. 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."

  8. 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

  9. Evans v. City of San Jose

    128 Cal.App.4th 1123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 57 times
    In Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123 (Evans), the trial court determined that a property owner, who had filed an action against the City of San Jose and its redevelopment agency challenging the validity of a redevelopment plan for blighted areas under California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) (Health & Safety Code § 33000 et seq.), "failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not raising her detailed and specific challenges to the evidence underlying the [redevelopment plan] during the administrative process, so that the Agency could evaluate and respond to her objections."

  10. 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."

  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 2

    Cal. Const. art. XIIID § 2   Cited 44 times

    Definitions. As used in this article: (a) "Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIC. (b) "Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. "Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment" and "special assessment tax." (c) "Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction

  13. 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

  14. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. XIII § 11   Cited 9 times

    (a) Lands owned by a local government that are outside its boundaries, including rights to use or divert water from surface or underground sources and any other interests in lands, are taxable if (1) they are located in Inyo or Mono County and (a) they were assessed for taxation to the local government in Inyo County as of the 1966 lien date, or in Mono County as of the 1967 lien date, whether or not the assessment was valid when made, or (b) they were acquired by the local government subsequent

  15. Section 60000 - Short title

    Cal. Wat. Code § 60000   Cited 6 times

    This division shall be known and may be cited as the Water Replenishment District Act. Ca. Water Code § 60000 Added by Stats. 1955, Ch. 1514.

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,153 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

  17. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective