§Why CasetextPricing

City of Huntington Beach vs. The State of California

Opposition

67 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. United States

    567 U.S. 387 (2012)   Cited 954 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding a state law that "authoriz[ed] state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable" was conflict preempted because it "violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government"

  2. South Dakota v. Dole

    483 U.S. 203 (1987)   Cited 509 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 28 U.S.C. "§ 158 is a valid use of the spending power"

  3. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,214 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  4. North Dakota v. United States

    495 U.S. 423 (1990)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a regulatory regime that did not disfavor the Federal Government could not be considered to discriminate against it

  5. South Carolina v. Baker

    485 U.S. 505 (1988)   Cited 153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal tax law was constitutional where it "regulates state activities" and does not "seek to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties"

  6. Johnson v. Bradley

    4 Cal.4th 389 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that city charter authorizing partial public financing of campaigns for elective city office superseded state statute in light of art. 11, section 5(e) of California Constitution

  7. California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles

    54 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 82 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding state law displacing municipal tax on savings banks

  8. Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd.

    222 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence supporting a lost profits calculation where the business "does not fit neatly into the established business versus new business paradigm"

  9. Mave Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

    219 Cal.App.4th 1408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 33 times
    Concluding that provision stating " '[p]roceedings to enforce, confirm, modify or vacate an Award will be controlled by and conducted in conformity with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec 1 et seq. or applicable state law,' " (boldface omitted) "did not dictate the applicable procedural law because it refer[red] to the FAA or 'applicable state law,' " (id. at p. 1430)

  10. Kennedy Comm'n v. City of Huntington Beach

    16 Cal.App.5th 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times

    E065358 10-31-2017 The KENNEDY COMMISSION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH et al., Defendants and Appellants. Michael E. Gates, City Attorney, Michael J. Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. Jones Day, Roman E. Darmer, Irvine, Walter C. Waidelich ; Public Law Center, Kenneth W. Babcock; California Affordable Housing Law Project, Public Interest Law Project, Oakland, Craig D. Castellanet, Michael F. Rawson; Legal Aid Society of Orange

  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 101,144 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  12. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 29,289 times   200 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 25,173 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  14. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,679 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  15. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 21,077 times   233 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  16. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,804 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

  17. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,712 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims

  18. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,465 times   562 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

  19. Section 1651 - Writs

    28 U.S.C. § 1651   Cited 11,462 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Granting us the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"

  20. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,961 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  21. Section 236.6 - Information regarding detainees

    8 C.F.R. § 236.6   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No person, including any state or local government entity or any privately operated detention facility, that houses, maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the Service (whether by contract or otherwise), and no other person who by virtue of any official or contractual relationship with such person obtains information relating to any detainee, shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other information relating to, such detainee. Such

  22. Section 235.2 - Parole for deferred inspection

    8 C.F.R. § 235.2   Cited 14 times

    (a) A district director may, in his or her discretion, defer the inspection of any vessel or aircraft, or of any alien, to another Service office or port-of-entry. Any alien coming to a United States port from a foreign port, from an outlying possession of the United States, from Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, or from another port of the United States at which examination under this part was deferred, shall be regarded as an applicant for admission at that onward port