Cuenca v. Cohen
California Court of Appeal
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
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- System Federation No. 91 v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- City of Grass Valley v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of L.A.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- City of Anaheim v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- City of Brentwood v. Department of FinanceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- City of Chula Vista v. StephenshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.