Legal Opinion

Cuenca v. Cohen

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 6, 2017No. C076814PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOCH, J.

—From 1945 until 2011, California’s redevelopment agencies received their funding from a tax increment that represented the difference between the property tax “based on the assessed value of the property prior to the effective date of the redevelopment plan” and “[a]ny tax revenue in excess of that amount . . . created by the increased value of project area property.” (California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246-247 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 267 P.3d 580] (Matosantos I).) In response to the growing perception the redevelopment agencies avoided funding…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. System Federation No. 91 v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. City of Grass Valley v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  2. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of L.A.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  3. City of Anaheim v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. City of Brentwood v. Department of FinanceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  5. City of Chula Vista v. StephenshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023

13 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