37:
203:, the "severe" limitations this imposed on state funding forced local governments and most school districts in California to make "drastic cutbacks." The district held that the measure was "so drastic and far-reaching that it was 'a revision' of the state Constitution and not a mere amendment."
60:
Amador Valley Joint Union High School
District et al., Petitioners, v. State Board of Equalization et al., Respondents. County of Alameda et al., Petitioners, v. State Board of Equalization et al., Respondents. City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph E. Tinney, as Tax
314:
196:
The proposition limited property tax assessments to the 1975 standard, eliminating $ 7 billion of the $ 11.4 billion in property tax revenue collected each year. According to
299:
177:
24:
294:
324:
309:
85:
The court confirmed that an initiative may not "revise" California's constitution; however, the Prop 13 did not amount to a revision but an amendment.
28:
304:
256:
181:
319:
236:
223:." The Court confirmed that an initiative cannot "revise" the constitution; Proposition 13, however, was an amendment to the
173:
42:
216:
224:
220:
161:
116:
263:
212:
198:
120:
108:
232:
128:
211:
Ultimately, the district was unsuccessful in its suit. In the ruling written by
Justice
288:
185:
124:
112:
71:
170:
Amador Valley Joint Union High School
District v. State Board of Equalization
98:
262:. California Women's Law Center. May 26, 2009. p. 152. Archived from
36:
143:
Richardson, joined by
Tobriner, Mosk, Clark, Manuel, Newman
155:
147:
139:
134:
104:
94:
89:
79:
66:
55:
50:
23:
178:Amador Valley Joint Union High School District
25:Amador Valley Joint Union High School District
8:
315:United States taxation and revenue case law
215:, the Supreme Court distinguished between "
20:
235:in arguing the non-constitutionality of
300:Education in Alameda County, California
248:
7:
295:Supreme Court of California case law
257:"In the Supreme Court of California"
180:challenged the constitutionality of
325:1978 California ballot propositions
61:Assessor, etc., et al., Respondents
75:, 583 P.2d 1281, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239
14:
310:United States education case law
231:was cited by dissenting Justice
35:
227:and not a "revision." In 2009,
305:1978 in United States case law
1:
16:California Supreme Court case
182:California's Proposition 13
172:(1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 was a
43:Supreme Court of California
29:State Board of Equalization
341:
160:
84:
34:
184:, which placed a cap on
174:California Supreme Court
225:California Constitution
162:California Constitution
320:Taxation in California
117:William P. Clark, Jr.
213:Frank K. Richardson
199:The Washington Post
176:case, in which the
121:Frank K. Richardson
109:Mathew O. Tobriner
105:Associate Justices
269:on April 15, 2010
167:
166:
332:
279:
278:
276:
274:
268:
261:
253:
233:Carlos R. Moreno
90:Court membership
74:
39:
38:
21:
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
331:
330:
329:
285:
284:
283:
282:
272:
270:
266:
259:
255:
254:
250:
245:
209:
194:
129:Frank C. Newman
70:
46:
17:
12:
11:
5:
338:
336:
328:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
287:
286:
281:
280:
247:
246:
244:
241:
208:
205:
193:
190:
186:property taxes
165:
164:
158:
157:
153:
152:
149:
148:Concur/dissent
145:
144:
141:
137:
136:
132:
131:
106:
102:
101:
96:
92:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
77:
76:
68:
64:
63:
57:
56:Full case name
53:
52:
48:
47:
40:
32:
31:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
337:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:
290:
265:
258:
252:
249:
242:
240:
238:
237:Proposition 8
234:
230:
229:Amador Valley
226:
222:
218:
214:
206:
204:
202:
200:
191:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
163:
159:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:Case opinions
133:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
107:
103:
100:
97:
95:Chief Justice
93:
88:
83:
78:
73:
72:22 Cal.3d 208
69:
65:
62:
58:
54:
49:
45:
44:
33:
30:
26:
22:
19:
273:November 20,
271:. Retrieved
264:the original
251:
228:
210:
197:
195:
169:
168:
156:Laws applied
125:Wiley Manuel
113:Stanley Mosk
59:
51:Decided 1978
41:
18:
67:Citation(s)
289:Categories
243:References
192:Background
217:amendment
99:Rose Bird
221:revision
207:Decision
140:Majority
219:" and "
80:Holding
267:(PDF)
260:(PDF)
275:2009
151:Bird
27:v.
291::
239:.
201:''
188:.
127:,
123:,
119:,
115:,
111:,
277:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.