§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. W. States Petroleum Ass'n v. Bd. of Equalization

    57 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 58 times
    Adopting Maxwell-Jolly 's analysis after summary judgment granted on regulatory validity

  3. Northwest Energetic Services, Llc. v. California Franchise Tax Board

    159 Cal.App.4th 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 64 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional an unapportioned local tax to the extent that it applied to out-of-state business income

  4. 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.

  5. Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

    37 Cal.4th 685 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that section 66014 covers fees for "zoning and building permits"

  6. 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."

  7. Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

    227 Cal.App.4th 172 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    B246782 consolidated with B246786 2014-06-18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; Natural Resources Defense Council et al., Real Parties in Interest. See 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional Law, § 1099 et seq. PETITIONS for writ of review. Petitions denied. (Cal.P.U.C. Dec. Nos.: D.11–12–035, D.13–01–016, D.12–05–037, D.13–04–030) ALDRICH See 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional Law, § 1099 et

  8. Pennell v. City of San Jose

    42 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 40 times
    In Pennell, we held that a $3. 75 charge on each residential rental unit, imposed by a rent control ordinance to fund its hearing process, also was a fee, not a tax.

  9. Estate of Claeyssens

    161 Cal.App.4th 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    No. B197307. March 27, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. 1131467, J. William McLafferty, Judge. John Gherini for Petitioner and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, and Susan K. Leach, Deputy Attorney General, for Objector and Respondent State of California. Stephen Shane Start, County Counsel, and Stephen D. Underwood, Chief Assistant County Counsel, for

  10. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

    203 Cal.App.3d 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 24 times
    Approving apportionment based in part on amount of emissions on premise that the more emissions, the greater the regulatory job of the district