§Why CasetextPricing

Protect Our Homes And Hills vs. County of Orange

Response

4 Cited authorities

  1. Citizens for Open Gov't v. City of Lodi

    205 Cal.App.4th 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 85 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding of no feasible mitigation measures reviewed for substantial evidence

  2. Poet, LLC v. State Air Res. Bd.

    12 Cal.App.5th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting the meaning of a writ of mandate de novo to determine if the agency's actions complied with the terms of the writ

  3. County of Orange v. Superior Court

    113 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. G032843 Filed October 7, 2003 Certified for Publication November 5, 2003 Original proceedings; petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 791309, C. Robert Jameson, Judge. Petition granted. Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Jack W. Golden, Deputy County Counsel; Law Offices of William D. Ross, William D. Ross and Lisabeth D. Rothman, for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Connor, Blake Griffin, Edmond M. Connor and

  4. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007