§Why CasetextPricing

SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Amicus Curiae Brief of Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District

13 Cited authorities

  1. Denham v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 4,217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the well settled principle that on appeal, "[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown"

  2. 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

  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. 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."

  5. 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."

  6. McCoy v. Hearst Corp.

    42 Cal.3d 835 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 68 times
    Drawing on federal applications of the New York Times standard

  7. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein

    150 Cal.App.4th 1364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that fee charged to smaller, unmetered wells based on estimated usage was not “justified on regulatory grounds” but that a regulatory purpose “might still be readily invoked with respect to metered extractions”

  8. Moore v. City of Lemon Grove

    237 Cal.App.4th 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 13 times
    Considering the evidence presented in support of the sanitation fees and charges imposed

  9. Lowe v. California Resources Agency

    1 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    In Lowe v. California Resources Agency, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at pages 1151-1152 and 1157-1158, this court upheld a superior court order which required the DPA to accord certain employees a quasi-legislative hearing on their request for changes in their salary ranges.

  10. City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside

    186 Cal. 7 (Cal. 1921)   Cited 49 times
    In City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside, 186 Cal. 7, 198 P. 784, the Supreme Court of California pointed out that the net effect of this statutory declaration was exactly nothing.

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,157 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

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.488 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.488

    (a) Application This rule applies in writ proceedings in criminal cases in which an entity is the defendant and in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (b)Compliance with rule 8.208 Each party in a civil case and any entity that is a defendant in a criminal case must comply with the requirements of rule 8.208 concerning serving and filing a certificate of interested entities or persons. (c)Placement of certificates (1) The petitioner's certificate must