Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
California Supreme Court
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
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. RankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Lopez v. Friant & Assocs., LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.