California Court of Appeal

The trial court did not err in determining that the defendant-Irrigation District complied with Proposition 218 in its passage of new water rates, where: 1) nothing prohibits defendant from holding a single protest election for a collection of rate increases involving all its customers; and 2) defendant complied with the substantive and procedural requirements implemented by Proposition 218. However, the trial court's order awarding the individual plaintiffs attorneys fees is reversed, where there is no substantial benefit the Individuals conferred on the public by virtue of their litigation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/04/2014
• Published 02/04/2014

Judges

• HUFFMAN

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel