Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos

Supreme Court of California
267 P.3d 580 (2011)


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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.