Legal Opinion
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 25, 1993No. B055523PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRIGNON, Acting P. J.
This case involves the imposition of two fees on a developer by a municipality as conditions of approval of a development project: (1) a $280,000 fee to mitigate the impact of a land-use change (the mitigation fee); and (2) a $33,220 fee in lieu of a requirement that art be placed on the development project (the in lieu art fee). The City of Culver City, the City Council of Culver City and members of the City Council of Culver City (collectively the City) appeal from the judgment of the trial court issuing a writ of mandate invalidating the mitigation fee imposed…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. PartnershipTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Annapolis v. WatermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Home Builders Ass'n v. City of ScottsdaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
- Kaufman & Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of ModestoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.