Legal Opinion
California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos
California Supreme Court
Decided December 29, 2011No. S194861PublishedCited by 135 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
Responding to a declared state fiscal emergency, in the summer of 2011 the Legislature enacted two measures intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or eliminating the diversion of property tax revenues from school districts to the state’s community redevelopment agencies. (Assem. Bill Nos. 26 & 27 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) enacted as Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, chs. 5-6 (hereafter Assembly Bill IX 26 and Assembly Bill IX 27); see also Assem. Bill IX 26, § 1, subds. (d)-(i); Assem. Bill IX 27, § 1, subds. (b), (c).) Assembly Bill IX 26 bars redevelopment…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Hunter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by135 opinions
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Michael Sato v. Orange Cty. Dept. of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of UplandCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Briggs v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2018
130 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.