Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Water District v. Dorff

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 21, 1982No. Civ. 29121PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McDANIEL, J.

This is an original proceeding brought by the Metropolitan Water District (the district) seeking a writ of mandate to compel its secretary (respondent) to publish notice of sale of $30 million worth of bonds (series F bonds). The secretary has declined to do so thus far because she has concluded that it would be in violation of 1978 Proposition 13.

Issuance of the bonds was authorized in 1966 when, pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the district’s board, an election was held and a majority of the voters voted to allow the district to “incur a bonded indebtedness in the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. People v. GilbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Lelande v. LoweryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Peery v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Woolley v. Embassy Suites, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District v. DorgeloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Board of County Commissioners v. E-470 Public Highway AuthorityColorado Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Community Facilities District No. 88-8 v. HarvillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Opinion No. (2009), California Attorney General Reports2009

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

Powered by the Exa API