Legal Opinion

County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 19, 2000No. A089524PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MARCHIANO, J.

In response to a budget crisis in 1992, the Legislature reduced the share of property taxes previously allocated to local governments and simultaneously placed an equal amount of property tax revenues into Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF’s) for distribution to school districts. The County of Sonoma (the County) then sought reimbursement pursuant to article XIIIB, section 6 of the California Constitution (section 6), contending that the ERAF legislation amounted to the imposition of a state mandated program or higher level of service. The Commission on State…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Butt v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. County of San Diego v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. White v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  4. California School Boards Ass'n v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. City of Alhambra v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

20 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