§Why CasetextPricing

KIRBY v. IMMOOS FIRE PROTECTION

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Answer Brief on the Merits

14 Cited authorities

  1. Elsner v. Uveges

    34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 274 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding enrolled bill reports prepared after a bill's passage instructive on matters of legislative intent

  2. Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. St. University Colleges

    33 Cal.3d 211 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 378 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a temporary employee's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies barred her judicial claim that the university had violated her First Amendment rights when it failed to reappoint her as an archivist

  3. Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

    97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 167 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"

  4. Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz

    38 Cal.4th 1139 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that state logging law did not preempt more restrictive local logging ordinance because the state law did "not require that every harvestable tree be cut"

  5. People v. Harper

    82 Cal.App.4th 1413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 99 times
    In Harper, the defendant was convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)) and related crimes.

  6. Martin v. Szeto

    32 Cal.4th 445 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 50 times

    No. S103417 February 19, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 999134, A. James Robertson II, Judge. Law Offices of Mattaniah Eytan, Mattaniah Eytan, Eric Schenk and Andrea R. Widburg for Defendants and Appellants. Craig K. Martin, in pro. per.; and Melissa L. Foster for Plaintiff and Respondent. WERDEGAR, J. We granted review to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over the proper interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.7. The section permits

  7. Bldg. Material Constr. Teamsters' Union v. Farrell

    41 Cal.3d 651 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, the City and County of San Francisco unilaterally eliminated two bargaining unit positions and reorganized and reclassified duties of hospital truck drivers who were members of the Building Material and Construction Teamsters' Union, Local 216 (Union).

  8. People v. Allen

    88 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 43 times
    In Allen, we noted that the penalty assessment in Government Code section 76000 was "analogous" to the Penal Code section 1464 assessment.

  9. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Department of Water Resources

    112 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 24 times
    Considering Senate Republican Floor Commentaries

  10. Hale v. Southern Cal. IPA Medical Group, Inc.

    86 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 15 times

    B137947 Filed January 30, 2001 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC209700, David L. Minning, Judge. Reversed with directions. Gary D. Stabile for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sulmeyer, Kupetz, Baumann Rothman and Elissa D. Miller for Defendant and Respondent Southern California IPA Medical Group, Inc. Solomon, Saltsman Jamieson and Stephen Allen Jamieson for Defendants and Respondents Ronald Accomazzo, Jerome Kornfeld, Rene Osman, Donald

  11. Section 24

    Cal. Const. art. I § 24   Cited 193 times
    Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"

  12. Section 450 - Must be authorized or required by law

    Cal. Evid. Code § 450   Cited 187 times
    Specifying procedures for taking judicial notice

  13. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  14. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 594 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice