Legal Opinion
City of Azusa v. Cohen
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 8, 2015No. C075814PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUARTE, J.
This case arises, as have many, from what we have previously characterized as the “Great Dissolution” of California redevelopment agencies. (City of Pasadena v. Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1462-1463 [176 Cal.Rptr.3d 729] (Pasadena))
The City of Azusa, its municipal utility (Azusa Light and Water, hereafter Utility) and the successor agency to its redevelopment agency (hereafter collectively City except as noted), timely appeal from a judgment denying their amended mandamus petition (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085). The petition sought to compel the Director of the Department…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. SaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Mallon v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Sanchez v. City of ModestoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of Grass Valley v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- California Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Cuenca v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- County of San Bernardino v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- California Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.