Legal Opinion

Bridges v. City of Wildomar

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 15, 2015No. E059890PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MILLER, J.

In February 2008, when voters chose to incorporate the City of Wildomar (Wildomar), voters also chose to elect city council members via by-district elections. In November 2009, voters chose to replace the by-district voting system with an at-large voting system. Martha Bridges and John Burkett (Plaintiffs) sued Wildomar for modifying the by-district means of electing city council members. Plaintiffs asserted two causes of action; (1) the modification of the voting system violated Government Code 1 sections 57378, 34884, and 34871, and (2) the modification of the voting system…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blotter v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Cucamongans United for Reasonale Expansion v. City of Rancho CucamongaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. County of Tulare v. NunesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brookside Investments, Ltd. v. City of El MonteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. Dorsey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API