Plantier v. Ramona Mun. Water Dist.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOpinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.
*621 *376 Before a local governmental agency may impose or increase certain property-related fees and charges, it must notify affected property owners and hold a public hearing. The hearing requirement arises from article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution, 1 which was added in 1996 by Proposition 218. 2 The question here is a narrow one. When an agency considers increasing a property-related fee, must a fee payor challenging the method of fee allocation first exhaust "administrative remedies" by participating in a Proposition 218 hearing that addresses only a proposed rate increase?…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Glendale City Employees' Ass'n v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Wilde v. City of DunsmuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- California Attorney General Opinion 24-101, California Attorney General Reports2025
- Campana v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- Campana v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- Carachure v. City of AzusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.