Legal Opinion

Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

California Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 2005No. S117590PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*691Opinion

CHIN, J.

The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66000-66025)1 (the Act) was passed by the Legislature “ ‘in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects.’ ” (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 864 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429].) Although most of the Act is concerned with development fees, it also addresses fees or charges that do not necessarily relate to a development project. (Utility Cost Management v. Indian Wells Valley Water Dist. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 [114…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  4. DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. RankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  4. California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Lopez v. Friant & Assocs., LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

36 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