Legal Opinion

City of Rancho Cucamonga v. MacKzum

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 20, 1991No. E007876PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DABNEY, Acting P. J.

Plaintiffs in this case are five cities: the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Temple City, Compton, El Segundo and Carson (the city plaintiffs) and five individuals: Dennis Stout, Ken Gillanders, Walter Tucker, Carl Jacobson and Katherine A. Calas, each of whom is a property owner and taxpayer of one of the city plaintiffs. Defendants are the Counties of San Bernardino and Los Angeles and their financial officers and the Cities of Redlands and Los Angeles. The State of California was named as a cross-defendant, and is aligned with the defendants for purposes of this…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Carman v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. County of Los Angeles v. SasakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. County of Sonoma v. Commission on State MandatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. White v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API