Legal Opinion
Moorpark Unified School District v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 10, 1990No. B048536PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, J.
Here we hold that an interested party may file a cross-complaint to an action which challenges the validity of a redevelopment plan. Accordingly, we direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing the court below to vacate its ruling which sustained a demurrer and dismissed petitioner’s cross-complaint. (Pfleger v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 421, 425 [218 Cal.Rptr. 371].)
Facts
On July 5, 1989, the City of Moorpark (the City) adopted a redevelopment plan promulgated by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the City. On September 29, 1989, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Millbrae School District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Western Pipe & Steel Co. v. Tuolumne Gold Dredging Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Trindade v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Green v. Community Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Pfleger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- EMID v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Meaney v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Golden Gate Hill Development Co. v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.