Legal Opinion
Beutz v. County of Riverside
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 26, 2010No. E046318PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KING, J.—
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2006, the County of Riverside (the County) formed a special assessment district consisting of all residential properties in the community of Wildomar in order to pay the annual ongoing costs of refurbishing and maintaining landscaping in four public parks in the community. Plaintiff Steven Beutz, an owner of residential property in Wildomar, filed suit against the County to void the landscape assessment on the ground it violated article XHI D of the California Constitution (art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (a)), which was enacted following voters’ adoption of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Conroy v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Laabs v. City of VictorvilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. DintinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mission Springs Water District v. VerjilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Golden Hill Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Gramercy Investment Trust v. Lakemont Homes Nevada, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Broad Beach Geologic Hazard etc. v. 31506 Victoria Point LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.