City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
California Court of Appeal
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
- Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
- Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- 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
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Bruni v. DidionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Jacks v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Truck Insurance Exchange v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- City of Scotts Valley v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.