Bighorn-Desert v. Verjil

Rejecting argument that rates based on usage were not subject to Proposition 218

City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency

Holding that Article X, § 2 of the California Constitution"dictates the basic principles defining water rights: that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water, and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially"

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

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.

Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist.

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."

Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency

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.

Ex Parte Daniels

Finding 'contradiction' where local legislation purported to fix a lower maximum speed limit for motor vehicles than that which general law fixed

Wright v. Best

In Wright v. Best, 19 Cal.2d 368, 121 P.2d 702, it was held that the lessee of a mining claim had no benefits other than those strictly defined by the lease and that to allow him to pollute the stream from mines operated by him would permit the burden of an easement to be increased beyond the scope of the grant contrary to established principles.

Atlantic Oil Co. v. County of Los Angeles

In Atlantic Oil Co. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 69 Cal.2d 585, it held that the incorporeal hereditament, the right to receive royalties, held by the exempt lessor was not an interest in realty but rather was inseparable for the purpose of ad valorem taxation from the profit a prendre which constituted the taxpayer's possessory interest.

Garden Water Corp. v. Fambrough

Determining section 338 inapplicable to inverse-condemnation claims

Trask v. Moore

In Trask v. Moore (1944) 24 Cal.2d 365, 368, for example, the plaintiff had a trust deed encumbering four parcels of property, including "all appurtenances including water rights."

Section 1

Section 3

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