Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates

California Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 2016No. S214855Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CUÉLLAR, J.,

Concurring and Dissenting.—A local government is entitled to reimbursement from the state when the Legislature or a state agency requires it to provide new programs or increased service. (Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6, subd. (a).) But one crucial exception coexists with this rule. It applies where the new program or increased service is mandated by a federal statute or regulation. (Gov. Code, § 17556, subd. (c).) We consider in this case whether certain conditions to protect water quality included in a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Environmental Protection Agency v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Arkansas v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Building Industry Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. California Youth Authority v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

5 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