Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. County of San Mateo

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 26, 1983No. AO15543PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KLINE, P. J.

This is a taxpayer challenge to the legislative and administrative interpretation of the 2 percent inflation factor provision of article XIII A, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution, which may be applied each year to increase the taxable value of real property in California.

Article XIII A, which is set forth in the appendix hereto, was enacted as a property tax reform and limitation initiative, commonly known as Proposition 13, that was adopted by the voters on June 6, 1978, and became effective on July 1, 1978.* 1 The taxable value of real property is…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Gould v. GouldSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  4. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Association of California Insurance Companies v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API