Legal Opinion

City of Costa Mesa v. Connell

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 12, 1999No. G023734PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SEYMOUR, J. *

In this case of first impression, we conclude an elaborate bond-and-lease plan for funding a street widening project violates article XIX of the California Constitution. The trial court correctly concluded the City of Costa Mesa (the City) was misspending restricted-use state gas tax funds to pay rent on two golf courses.

In reaching our decision, we reject the City’s facile argument that because the money ultimately paid for street improvements, the circuitous route it took is irrelevant. The issue is not whether equivalent dollars were dropped into the bin labeled “Street…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Legislature v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. City of Los Angeles v. OffnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Dean v. KuchelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Lentz v. McMahonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City of Merced v. American Motorists InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. and FriendsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Aceves v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Phelps v. PeeryDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API