Legal Opinion

City of El Monte v. Commission on State Mandates

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 27, 2000No. C025631PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SCOTLAND, P. J.

In this appeal from the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate, we are called upon to determine whether legislation requiring local redevelopment agencies to contribute to a local Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) constituted a reimbursable state mandate under article XIII B, section 6 of California’s Constitution.

As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court that the legislation did not constitute a reimbursable state mandate and that plaintiffs were accorded a fair hearing before the Commission on State Mandates.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Butt v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. County of San Diego v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. County of Sonoma v. Commission on State MandatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. City of Scotts Valley v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Cuenca v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  5. Grossmont Union High School District v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

6 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