Legal Opinion
O'CONNELL v. City of Stockton
California Supreme Court
Decided July 26, 2007No. S135160PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KENNARD, J.
Our state Constitution allows cities and counties to enact and enforce local ordinances so long as they are “not in conflict” with the state’s “general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Any conflicting ordinance is preempted by state law and thus void.
At issue here is a city ordinance allowing forfeiture to the city of any vehicle used to commit certain acts made criminal by state law. The Court of Appeal held that state law preempts the city ordinance. We agree.
I
Plaintiff Kendra O’Connell filed this taxpayer action (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a) against the City of Stockton…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Bennis v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho CucamongaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Browne v. County of TehamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Sequoia Park Associates v. County of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.