Legal Opinion
City of Pasadena v. Cohen
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 19, 2014No. C073654PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
Given the dire condition of state finances, in the summer of 2011 the Legislature enacted legislation (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 5X (hereafter chapter 5X)), primarily within the Health and Safety Code, 1 that barred any new redevelopment agency obligations, and established procedures for the windup and dissolution of the obligations of the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies then existing. (California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 241, 246, 250-251, 253 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 267 P.3d 580] (Matosantos).) 2 This case stems from a dispute…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Boren v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Hostetter v. AldersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- People ex rel. Department of Conservation v. El Dorado CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- City of Brentwood v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- City of Cerritos v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- County of Sonoma v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- City of Grass Valley v. Cohen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- City of Emeryville v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.