15 Cited authorities

  1. Bighorn-Desert v. Verjil

    39 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bighorn, our Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the scope of another article in the California Constitution, article XIII C, but its discussion relied in part on a discussion of article XIII D from Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121, 83 P.3d 518 (Richmond).
  2. Apartment Association v. Los Angeles

    24 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 62 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.
  3. City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency

    23 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 62 times
    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"
  4. Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist

    32 Cal.4th 409 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Richmond v. Shasta Community ServicesDist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 121, 83 P.3d 518] (Richmond), we construed article XIII D as it applies to fees that a local public water district charged for making new service connections to its domestic water delivery system.
  5. Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Mgmt. Agency

    220 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Griffith, all users of a groundwater basin could be charged for the cost of delivering water from other sources to only the coastal users, because the deliveries reduced the amount of groundwater the coastal users would extract from their own wells, thereby decreasing saltwater intrusion for the entire groundwater basin.
  6. Ex Parte Daniels

    183 Cal. 636 (Cal. 1920)   Cited 159 times
    In Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636, 639 [ 192 P. 442, 21 A.L.R. 1172], we held that the regulation of traffic on the public streets was a matter of state concern, notwithstanding that such regulation "is of special interest to the people of a municipality."
  7. Wright v. Best

    19 Cal.2d 368 (Cal. 1942)   Cited 65 times

    Docket No. Sac. 5393. February 3, 1942. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sierra County. Raymond McIntosh, Judge. Reversed. Gilford G. Rowland, Wilson Craven and Rowland Craven for Appellant. A.J. Just, Louis V. Skinner and Fitzgerald, Abbott Beardsley for Respondent. EDMONDS, J. The appellant asserts that, as the owner of a water right by appropriation, she is entitled to enjoin C.L. Best from polluting Rock Creek in connection with certain mining operations, and also to recover from

  8. Atlantic Oil Co. v. County of Los Angeles

    69 Cal.2d 585 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 18 times
    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.
  9. Garden Water Corp. v. Fambrough

    245 Cal.App.2d 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 14 times
    In Garden Water Corp. v. Fambrough (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 324, 328 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 862], a public entity took possession of the plaintiffs water system, supplied water to some 90 residences, maintained the system and retained all income.
  10. Trask v. Moore

    149 P.2d 854 (Cal. 1944)   Cited 29 times
    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."
  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 349 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