What is the test for establishing that rates fixed by a lawful rate-fixing body are reasonable, fair and lawful?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Winnaman v. Cambria Community Services Dist., 208 Cal.App.3d 49, 256 Cal.Rptr. 40 (Cal. App. 1989):
The long standing rule is that rates fixed by a lawful rate-fixing body are presumed to be reasonable, fair and lawful, and the burden of overcoming this presumption is on the party challenging the ordinance. (Durant v. City of Beverly
Page 43
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for proving that a fee charged by a rate-fixing body is reasonable, fair and lawful? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law or case law that supports the argument that a prosecution case is reasonable in its entirety? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where an attorney at law has been found guilty of misappropriating funds entrusted to the Attorney at Law by mistake? (California, United States of America)
What is the law around reasonable accommodation in employment law? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a jury reasonably could reasonably find that a murder victim had motive for the killing? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law that supports the argument that a trial judge understands and follow established law? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law that supports the argument that a trial judge understands and follow established law? (California, United States of America)
Does a competent, unconflicted counsel who submitted on the evidence at the preliminary hearing, should have argued to the trial court that this evidence did not establish the lawful duty element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
