§Why CasetextPricing

Citys Opposition To Tro

Opposition

10 Cited authorities

  1. Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company

    28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 826 times
    Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

  2. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors

    48 Cal.4th 32 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 326 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding trails agreement not separate agreement but subsequent activity encompassed in original project

  3. Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles

    126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 205 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth elements of res judicata under California law

  4. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District

    1 Cal.5th 937 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 76 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Considering environmental review procedure when agency proposed change to previously approved project for which environmental review document had been issued

  5. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

    214 Cal.App.4th 1520 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how res judicata bars a cause of action that was or could have been litigated in a prior proceeding

  6. Citizens for Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno

    229 Cal.App.4th 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In L Street, the City of Fresno filed an initial NOD after the city’s historic preservation commission approved an MND and a demolition permit.

  7. Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    23 Cal.App.4th 1459 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 37 times
    In Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472, the court weighed defendants' public interest activities against evidence that any harm could readily be redressed by compensatory damages and held that a preliminary injunction was therefore not appropriate.

  8. Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose

    2 Cal.App.5th 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times   4 Legal Analyses

    H041563 08-12-2016 FRIENDS OF THE WILLOW GLEN TRESTLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Defendants and Appellants. Brandt–Hawley Law Group, Susan Brandt–Hawley, Glen Ellen, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Office of the City Attorney, Richard Doyle, City Attorney, Nora Frimann, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn J. Zoglin, Senior Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. Stoel Rives LLP, Timothy M. Taylor, Carissa M. Beecham, Sacramento, for League of California Cities as

  9. Conservancy v. City of San Jose

    49 Cal.App.5th 127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    H047068 05-18-2020 WILLOW GLEN TRESTLE CONSERVANCY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Susan Brandt-Hawley, Glen Ellen, Brandt-Hawley Law Group Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents: Office of the City Attorney, Richard Doyle, City Attorney, Nora Frimann, Assistant City Attorney, Margo Laskowska, Senior Deputy City Attorney, Elisa Tolentino, Senior Deputy City Attorney, Kathryn J. Zoglin, Senior Deputy

  10. San Francisco Newspaper Printing v. Superior Ct.

    170 Cal.App.3d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. H000535. July 2, 1985. COUNSEL John M. Ross, William J. Dowling and Cooper, White Cooper for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Glenn E. Miller, Johnston, Miller Giannini, Geoffrey Van Loucks and Van Loucks Hanley for Real Party in Interest. OPINION BRAUER, J. Petitioner San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company, Inc. (SFNA) applies for a writ of mandate or prohibition directed to the Superior Court, Santa Clara County to dissolve an injunction pendente lite. SFNA is a defendant