Legal Opinion

City of Watsonville v. State Department of Health Services

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 26, 2005No. H028111PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PREMO, J.

In November 2002, the voters of the City of Watsonville (City) passed a ballot initiative known as Measure S. Measure S prohibits introduction of any substance into City’s water supply unless the substance conforms to listed requirements. We hold that to the extent Measure S applies to fluoridation it is preempted by state law.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In the fall of 2002, City was poised to begin a water fluoridation project when City’s voters passed Measure S and halted City’s fluoridation efforts. Measure S prohibits introducing any substance into City’s drinking…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Texas Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Guzman v. County of MontereyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Browne v. County of TehamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. City of Grass Valley v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West HollywoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010

17 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