Legal Opinion
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 21, 2007No. H027817PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUSHING, P. J.
Plaintiff and respondent Pajaro Valley Water'Management Agency (Agency) brought this validation proceeding to ascertain the validity of its 2003 ordinance increasing the groundwater augmentation fee to be charged to operators of wells within its jurisdiction. Defendants and appellants Ray Amrhein, Guy George, Mark Pista, San Andreas Mutual Water Company, Patrick Layhee, and John Sheffield (Objectors) appeared in opposition to the requested decree. After taking evidence, the trial court held the ordinance valid, ruling that the matter was proper for a validation…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. GuardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. v. City of Union CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Weisblat v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.