Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 2002No. S091757Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it finds the Court of Appeal erred in assessing plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s (City) housing replacement fee under a standard of heightened scrutiny. I also agree with much of what the majority says about the test that does apply to this exaction. My objections are that in the remainder of its analysis, the majority fails to decide the issues on which we granted review and strains to reach questions that are not fairly included in the review petition.

*680I ask different…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Yee v. City of EscondidoSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. People v. BrevermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

16 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