About Argentco.com




About Argentco.com



RECENT CALIFORNIA DECISIONS

March 2007
To read this entire item of approximately 1300 words online now in PDF format:
  • Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication.
  • Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25).
  • To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column
  • PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here
  • Second District Dismisses Constitutional Challenge to AB 687—Underlying Casino Contracts Are Subject to Validation Statutes

    California Commerce Casino, Inc., et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as Governor, et al.

    Every public agency that relies on public financing to fund a portion of its projects—which includes virtually all water agencies—should find comfort in the holding and reasoned logic of California Commerce Casino, Inc., et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as Governor (Commerce Casino). As noted in the case, “A validation action implements important policy considerations,” which include the need for a speedy determination of the validity of the public agency action in question, the need to limit the extent to which litigation can impair a public agency’s ability to operate financially, and the need to facilitate a public agency’s “‘financial transactions with third parties by quickly affirming their legality.’” Commerce Casino, quoting Friedland v. City of Long Beach, 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 843 (1998). By determining that even the more restrictively drafted statutes authorizing validation proceedings must include agreements that are “inextricably bound up” with a public agency’s bonds, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness, the Commerce Casino court has given public agencies additional opportunities to successfully assert a defense based on the failure to timely file a reverse validation action.


    The information contained on this page is presented for your convenience as news and analysis. It is not intended as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such. Please consult an attorney for advice in your case or matter
    Read related items on:
    Statutes - State) California) Assembly Bill 687
    Topics) Indian Tribes) Casinos
    California) All State
    2nd District Court of Appeal
    California Commerce Casino, Inc., et al. v. Governor Schwarzenegger, et al

    © Argent & Schuster, Inc. All rights reserved.
    All information contained in the Argent Communications Group website is protected by copyright law.
    Copyright policy
    Contact: (800) 419-2741 - E-mail: Click Here