Connell v. Superior Court

19 Citing cases

  1. Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Comm'n On State Mandates

    27 Cal.App.5th 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

    "Subvention" refers to claims by local governments and agencies in California for reimbursement from the state for costs of complying with state mandates for which the mandate does not concomitantly provide funds to the local agency. ( Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 395, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231 ( Connell ).) In the event a local agency believes it is entitled to subvention for a new unfunded state mandate, the agency may file a "test claim" with the Commission on State Mandates (Commission).

  2. Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Comm'n On State Mandates

    33 Cal.App.5th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times
    In Paradise Irrigation Dist., a group of irrigation and water districts contended they were entitled to subvention under Section 6 because they did not have sufficient legal authority to levy fees to pay for water service improvements mandated by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Stats. 2009-2010, 7th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 4, § 1.)

    "[S]ubvention" refers to claims by local governments and agencies in California for reimbursement from the state for costs of complying with state mandates for which the mandate does not concomitantly provide funds to the local agency. ( Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 395, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231 ( Connell ).) In the event a local agency believes it is entitled to subvention for a new unfunded state mandate, the agency may file a "test claim" with the Commission on State Mandates (Commission).

  3. Dep't of Water Res. v. Comm'n On State Mandates

    27 Cal.App.5th 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

    "[S]ubvention" refers to claims by local governments and agencies in California for reimbursement from the state for costs of complying with state mandates for which the mandate does not concomitantly provide funds to the local agency. (Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 395 (Connell).) In the event a local agency believes it is entitled to subvention for a new unfunded state mandate, the agency may file a "test claim" with the Commission on State Mandates (Commission).

  4. Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates

    85 Cal.App.5th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The sole issue before us is whether permittees have "the authority, i.e., the right or power, to levy fees sufficient to cover the costs of the state-mandated program." ( Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 401, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231.) The inquiry is an issue of law, not a question of fact.

  5. Cty. of Los Angeles v. Commission

    150 Cal.App.4th 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Declining to consider whether a county's constitutional challenge to Government Code section 17516c was time-barred by section 341.5 : "This statute of limitations defense, which should have been raised before the trial court, is not cognizable on this appeal"

    However, where the facts are undisputed and the issues present questions of law, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court's decision but may make its own determination. ( Ibid.)" (Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 394 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231].) DISCUSSION

  6. Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang

    188 Cal.App.4th 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    In Clovis Unified, community college districts who provided health care services were mandated to provide those services in the future at the level of care they had provided in the 1986-1987 fiscal year.

    This observation, however, does not diminish the basic principle underlying the state mandate process that sections 17514 and 17566, subdivision (d) embody: To the extent a local agency or school district "has the authority" to charge for the mandated program or increased level of service, that charge cannot be recovered as a state-mandated cost. (See Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 401 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231] ["the plain language of [section 17556, subdivision (d)] precludes reimbursement where the local agency has the authority, i.e., the right or the power, to levy fees sufficient to cover the costs of the state-mandated program"]; see Connell, at pp. 397-398.) In light of sections 17514 and 17556, subdivision (d), the Commission found the Health Fee Elimination Program to be a reimbursable state-mandated program to the extent the cost to community college districts of maintaining their level of health services at the 1986-1987 level, as required by the Health Fee Elimination Program mandate, is not covered by the nominal health fee authorized by section 76355, subdivision (a)(1) ($10 maximum per semester per student).

  7. Cty. of Orange v. Superior Court

    155 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming trial court's denial of father's motion to set aside the paternity judgment where, even if the allegations in the motion were true, "extrinsic fraud [was not] sufficiently alleged"

    We do not reach this issue because we exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, in the interests of justice and judicial economy. ( Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 744-747 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 872 P.2d 143]; Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 393-394 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231].) The merits of the issue have been fully briefed by the parties, and this is a case in which the failure to consider the issue at this juncture would be a dereliction of our duties as a reviewing court.

  8. Esslinger v. Cummins

    144 Cal.App.4th 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting § 17200 in a way that made it consistent with the Rest.2d Trusts

    Finally, if the probate court's order were not appealable, we would exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. ( Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 745-747 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 872 P.2d 143]; Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 393-394 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231].) II.Stephen, as a Remainder Beneficiary, Had Standing Under Probate Code Section 17200, Subdivision (b)(7) to Petition the Probate Court for an Order Compelling the Trustee to Account.

  9. Seligsohn v. Day

    121 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Requiring disclosure of records of discrimination complaints filed about officer even though they were not maintained in the officer's personnel file because they could have employment consequences in the future

    This is plainly correct because, regarding a trial court's ruling on a petition for a writ of mandate, an appellate court can and should make its own determination when the case involves the "resolution of questions of law where the facts are undisputed." ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122]; see also Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 394 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 231].) This appeal clearly involves questions of law, specifically, the interpretation and application of provisions of (1) the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq., hereafter Bill of Rights Act) and (2) the California Public Records Act (CPRA), relating to the inspection of public records (§ 6250 et seq.).

  10. Hawkins v. Cnty. of L. A.

    No. B310278 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2022)

    "An appealable judgment or order is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal." (Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 392; Code Civ. Proc, § 904.1.) An order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not an appealable order.