Legal Opinion
North State Development Co. v. Pittsburg Unified School District
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 31, 1990No. A045009PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LOW, P. J.
Plaintiffs North State Development Company (North State) and A. D. Seeno Construction Company (Seeno) appeal from the judgment dismissing their case after a demurrer was sustained to their third amended mandamus petition challenging the imposition of a “school facilities fee” on new residential construction by defendant Pittsburg Unified School District (the District). We conclude the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations contained in Government Code section 54995 1 in sustaining the demurrer to a portion of the petition. We hold that sections 66008 and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- San Marcos Water District v. San Marcos Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Winnaman v. Cambria Community Services DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
3Cited by4 opinions
- Western/California, Ltd. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- N.T. Hill Inc. v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- RRLH, Inc. v. Saddleback Valley Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- CALIFORNIA RANCH HOMES DEVELOPMENT CO. OF HEMET v. San Jacinto Unified Sch. Dist.California Court of Appeal · 1993