California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos
Supreme Court of California
267 P.3d 580 (2011)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
In the summer of 2011, the California legislature passed two measures to stabilize school funding by reducing the diversion of property-tax revenues from school districts to community-redevelopment agencies that had been established by the legislature. The first measure barred redevelopment agencies from engaging in new business and provided for the windup and dissolution of such agencies. The second measure offered a way for redevelopment agencies to continue operations if the agencies made payments into funds that benefitted school districts. The California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and other affected parties (plaintiffs) filed suit against Ana Matosantos (defendant), the director of finance of California, seeking extraordinary writ relief on the ground that the two measures violated California’s state constitution. The plaintiffs argued that the measures violated California’s Proposition 22, which had amended the state constitution to limit the state’s ability to require payments from redevelopment agencies for the state’s benefit. Matosantos argued that the measures were valid, because the payments were technically voluntary.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.