Legal Opinion

City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 8, 2000No. H019427PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ELIA, J.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has been underpaying 70 California cities for electric franchises, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 6231, subdivision (c). The superior court found that in 70 cities of the 72-member class, PG&E had a “constitutional franchise” for lighting, which entitled it to pay a lower franchise fee to the plaintiff cities for nonlighting franchises. The court therefore granted PG&E summary judgment against these 70 class members. We find triable issues of fact as to 14 of the plaintiff…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  5. City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Bruni v. DidionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Jacks v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Truck Insurance Exchange v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. City of Scotts Valley v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

15 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