Legal Opinion

Las Virgenes Municipal Water District v. Dorgelo

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 13, 1984No. B002715PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ROTH, P. J. J.—

The question in this original mandamus proceeding is whether the remaining portion of a water district’s bonds, the initial issuance of which was statutorily authorized in 1964 by an “absence of landowner protest” plan, may now be issued consistently with the mandates of Proposition 13. The 1964 authorization permitted petitioner water district to issue $3.2 million in bonds. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, it had issued $1.7 million of those bonds. The district now seeks to issue the remaining $1.5 million of those previously authorized but heretofore…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. City and County of San Francisco v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Carman v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Curtis v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. County of Fresno v. MalmstromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Oldham v. KizerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Scottsdale Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Morgan Hill Unified School District v. AmorosoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  4. RRLH, Inc. v. Saddleback Valley Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

4 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