Guerrieri v. City of Fontana

7 Citing cases

  1. Norlund v. Thorpe

    34 Cal.App.3d 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    . . ." ( Guerrieri v. City of Fontana, 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 419 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 781].) It follows that the annexation proceeding was not complete either when the referendum petition was filed or when this mandate proceeding was commenced.

  2. Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. County of Santa Clara

    153 Cal.App.3d 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that an association composed of taxpayers and residents had authority to sue in a representative capacity because it was asserting the "public right" to have agencies comply with proper annexation procedures

    Since the enactment of MORGA, no court has determined who is an "interested person" under section 863 in the context of a challenge to the validity of territorial annexations. In addressing this issue, the trial court ruled that such an interested person was one who alleged land ownership, residency, or voter registration in a particular annexed territory. Apparently the trial court followed a line of pre-MORGA cases in which annexations were challenged via extraordinary writs, and standing to seek such relief required the showing of a close connection between the annexed territory and the petitioner seeking relief. (See, e.g., Amer. Distl. Co. v. City Council, Sausalito (1950) 34 Cal.2d 660 [ 213 P.2d 704, 18 A.L.R.2d 1247]; Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Mun. Wat. Dist. (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 52 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 120]; Guerrieri v. City of Fontana (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 417 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 781] ; Wine v. Council of City of Los Angeles (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 157 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 94]; Johnson v. City of San Pablo (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 447 [ 283 P.2d 57]; Jefferson Union Sch. Dist. v. City Council (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 264 [ 277 P.2d 104]; and Potter v. City Council (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 141 [ 227 P.2d 25].) Some of these cases held that taxpayers in an annexing city lacked standing because they were not beneficially interested in the territorial annexations solely because of their status as such taxpayers.

  3. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com

    13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "plaintiffs have standing 'to procure enforcement of a public duty, . . .'"

    (See: Gov. Code, §§ 35316, 35317, and 35318.)" ( Guerrieri v. City ofFontana, 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 419 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 781].) Whether for other purposes an annexation may be complete at an earlier date is beside the point.

  4. Duntley v. City of Camarillo

    265 Cal.App.2d 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)

    The publicly owned property must be considered in arriving at the denominator as well as the numerator of the protest fraction. This interpretation is consistent with what was decided in Guerrieri v. City of Fontana (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 417 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 781], which involved the interpretation of subdivision (a) of section 35313, dealing with the annexation of territory consisting of taxable private property and tax-exempt private property. In rejecting the contention that the value of the exempt property could not be considered unless an owner of exempt property protested, the court said (at p. 421): "The use of the words `for protest purposes' seems to us to mean protest purposes of every kind and nature; the meaning cannot sensibly be limited to protest purposes only if the owner of such property exempt from taxation is a protestant."

  5. Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Mun. Wat. Dist

    242 Cal.App.2d 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 16 times
    In Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Mun. Wat. Dist., supra, 242 Cal.App.2d 52, petitioners obtained a peremptory writ of mandate ordering a municipal water district to terminate its proceedings for the annexation of lands underlying Big Bear Lake.

    ( Hollman v. Warren, 32 Cal.2d 351, 357 [ 196 P.2d 562]; Pitts v. Perluss, 58 Cal.2d 824, 829 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 19, 377 P.2d 83]; Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co., 222 Cal.App.2d 626 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 354]; Board of Social Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 98 [ 162 P.2d 627]; Gogerty v. Coachella Valley Junior College Dist., 57 Cal.2d 727, 730, 732 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 806, 371 P.2d 582].) Among those who have been held to have a sufficient beneficial interest to apply for a writ of review or mandate to contest an annexation proceeding are a property owner within the territory sought to be annexed ( American Distilling Co. v. City Council, 34 Cal.2d 660 [212 P.2d 704, 18 A.L.R.2d 1247]; Guerrieri v. City of Fontana, 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 419 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 781]); a municipality competing for the annexation of all or part of the same territory ( Johnson v. City of San Pablo, 132 Cal.App.2d 447, 458 [ 283 P.2d 57]); a school district, a portion of whose territory is sought to be annexed by a city and which, if accomplished, would automatically exclude the territory from the district. ( Jefferson Union School Dist. v. City Council of Sunnyvale, 129 Cal.App.2d 264, 267 [ 277 P.2d 104].)

  6. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com'n of Ventura County

    37 Cal.App.3d 842 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)

    (See: Gov.Code, §§ 35316, 35317, and 35318.)' (Guerrieri v. City of Fontana, 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 419, 42 Cal.Rptr. 781, 783.) Whether for other purposes an annexation may be complete at an earlier date is beside the point.

  7. Weber v. City Council of Thousand Oaks, Ventura County

    27 Cal.App.3d 978 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)

    The value of appellants' land was less than half the total assessed value of the area to be annexed; see Gov.Code, § 35312. The annexation would not be complete until both events had occurred; see Guerrieri v. City of Fontana (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 417, 42 Cal.Rptr. 781. CONTENTIONS