Legal Opinion

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Salinas

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 3, 2002No. H022665PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ELIA, J.

In this “reverse validation” action, plaintiff taxpayers challenged a storm drainage fee imposed by the City of Salinas. Plaintiffs contended that the fee was a “property-related” fee requiring voter approval, pursuant to California Constitution, article XIII D, section 6, subdivision (c), which was added by the passage of Proposition 218. The trial court ruled that the fee did not violate this provision because (1) it was not a property-related fee and (2) it met the exemption for fees for sewer and water services. We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion and therefore…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
  3. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Board of Supervisors v. LonerganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Apartment Ass'n of L.A. Cty. Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. United Rentals Northwest, Inc. v. Yearout Mechanical, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. City of Lewiston v. GLADUSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
  5. Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Comm'n on State Mandates, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

13 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