Legal Opinion
L.I.F.E. Committee v. City of Lodi
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 6, 1989No. C000443PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PUGLIA, P. J.
A city may make and enforce ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general law of the state (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7). In this appeal we consider whether an initiative ordinance, presented to the electorate of the City of Lodi as Measure A, conforms with the implicit limitations of article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution. The ostensible purpose of Measure A is to protect and preserve agricultural land (Green Belt) located immediately outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Lodi, a general law city. Of particular concern is paragraph 5 of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Yost v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Mervynne v. AckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut CreekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Fonseca v. City of GilroyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Las Tunas Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.