Meaney

Meaney v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 4th 566·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 589·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 139·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1115
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1993A056917California5,542 words

Opinion

Opinion

Newsom, J.

Four school districts in the Sacramento area, joined by the Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools (hereafter referred to collectively as School Districts), appeal an order dismissing their first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for a validating proceeding against the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (hereafter the Agency), the City of Sacramento (hereafter the City) and City Council of the City of Sacramento (hereafter the City Council), and the County of Sacramento and Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento (hereafter the County). After being filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on November 7, 1990, the action was transferred to the Contra Costa County Superior Court on the School Districts’ motion for change of venue. The defendants filed a demurrer which the trial court sustained. When the School Districts filed a first amended petition and complaint, the defendants again countered with a demurrer. The court then sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered an order dismissing the action.

The alternative theories alleged in the petition and complaint are each directed against an agreement dated October 10,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.