Legal Opinion

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Roseville

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 13, 2002No. C036295PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVIS, J.

The City of Roseville (Roseville) operates three municipal utilities that provide, respectively, water, sewer, and refuse collection services. Roseville imposes an “in-lieu franchise fee” (in-lieu fee) of 4 percent on each of the utilities’ annual budgets; this fee is paid by the utility ratepayers and transferred to Roseville’s general fund.

This appeal presents us with two principal questions: whether Proposition 218—a descendant of Proposition 13 that covers local government fees and charges—applies to Roseville’s in-lieu fee; and, if so, whether the in-lieu fee violates…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of La HabraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Agnew v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Apartment Ass'n of L.A. Cty. Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Hansen v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. VerjilCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Richmond v. Shasta Community Services DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of ReddingCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

21 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