Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Widders v. Furchtenicht

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 20, 2008No. B196583PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERREN, J.

Jeff B. Furchtenicht, an attorney who resides in Ojai, submits two ballot initiative measures that direct the city council to exercise its “informed judgment” to craft and adopt laws relating to chain stores and affordable housing. Monte L. Widders, Ojai’s City Attorney, informs Furchtenicht that the measures are an improper exercise of the initiative power conferred by the California Constitution because they do not propose actual legislation. After Furchtenicht declines to withdraw the measures, Widders seeks a judicial declaration relieving him of his statutory duty to…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. Filarsky v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  3. Mission Springs Water District v. VerjilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  5. Blakemore v. Bruce CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2021

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API