Legal Opinion

Plantier v. Ramona Mun. Water Dist.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 2019No. S243360PublishedCited by 36 opinions

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

  1. Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. 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

  1. Wilde v. City of DunsmuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
  2. California Attorney General Opinion 24-101, California Attorney General Reports2025
  3. Campana v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2023
  4. Campana v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2023
  5. Carachure v. City of AzusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

31 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