Ehrlich v. City of Culver City

Supreme Court of California · Decided 1996-03-05

Cited by 121 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

MOSK, J., Concurring. I concur in the plurality’s judgment, and agree with much of its analysis. I fully agree with part V of the plurality opinion—that Culver City (the City) may be able to charge a fee for the loss of property designated for recreational use, but that it failed to employ the proper method of calculating such a fee. I agree, too, with part VI of the plurality opinion—that the art fee is constitutional. I wri…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.