Legal Opinion
Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 4, 2012No. H036624PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*100Opinion
MIHARA, Acting P. J.
After respondent Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (Agency) enacted three ordinances (ords. Nos. 2002-02, 2003-01, 2004-02) that increased groundwater augmentation charges for the operators of wells in the Agency’s jurisdiction, several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the ordinances were filed. In 2008, these lawsuits were resolved by a stipulated agreement for entry of judgment. In 2010, appellant John G. Eiskamp filed a complaint against the Agency seeking a declaration that ordinance No. 2002-02 (Ordinance) was invalid, a refund of augmentation…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
- McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Carsten v. Psychology Examining CommitteeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020