Legal Opinion

Marek v. Napa Community Redevelopment Agency

California Supreme Court

Decided October 13, 1988No. S000820PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KAUFMAN, J.

receive tax increment revenues (see fn. 3, post) under California’s Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code, § 33000 et seq.), local redevelopment agencies must file with the county auditor an annual “statement of indebtedness.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 33675, subd. (b) (see fn. 8, post).) The auditor is then required to pay tax increment revenues to the agency “in an amount not to exceed the amount shown on the agency’s statement of indebtedness.” (§ 33675, subd. (d).) If the auditor disputes the amount of indebtedness claimed in its statement, the auditor is…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Carman v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Redevelopment Agency v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Tyrone v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Agostini v. StryculaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Alder v. DrudisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Torres v. City of Yorba LindaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Cuenca v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  5. City of Galt v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

18 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