§Why CasetextPricing

PACIFIC PALISADES BOWL MOBILE ESTATES v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff and Appellant’s Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  2. Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

    44 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 338 times
    Holding that three-year statute of limitations applies to private nuisances

  3. Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City

    34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 252 times
    Confirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history

  4. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 335 times
    Holding that a suit to enjoin the "Old Joe Camel" cigarette advertising campaign targeting minors pursuant to California state law is not preempted by the Federal Act

  5. In re Tobacco Cases II

    41 Cal.4th 1257 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 185 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tobacco Cases II, we held that, as a general matter, the UCL is not subject to preemption on its face by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.), which governs cigarette sales to minors, because it "is a law of general application, and it is not based on concerns about smoking and health."

  6. Salazar v. Eastin

    9 Cal.4th 836 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 162 times
    In Salazar, for example, the trial court entered an injunctive order barring school districts for charging fees for transportation to and from school.

  7. Regents of University, Ca. v. Superior Court

    20 Cal.4th 509 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 130 times
    In Regents, the Supreme Court noted that a Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act violation was a "one-time event" and held that the applicable statute (§ 11130) did not permit a right of action to nullify and void the Regents' past approval of a controversial resolution where there was no showing of a "present" violation.

  8. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co.

    11 Cal.4th 1049 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 124 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under Macri, § 11580.2(p) establishes a precondition to the accrual of the insured's right to coverage

  9. Yost v. Thomas

    36 Cal.3d 561 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that a city councils adoption of a specific plan, because of its similarity to adoption or amendment of a general plan or rezoning, was a legislative act and thus subject to referendum

  10. Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.App.4th 1547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 70 times
    Rejecting former § 65907 and applying Code Civ. Proc., § 338 where petitioners did not "challenge any specific decision under the Mello act" but instead sought "review of the City's overall policies in implementing" that statute and further sought "to correct the City's interpretation of its responsibilities under that statute"

  11. Section 30005 - Powers not limited by division

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 30005   Cited 19 times

    No provision of this division is a limitation on any of the following: (a) Except as otherwise limited by state law, on the power of a city or county or city and county to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with this act, imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or water use or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone. (b) On the power of any city or county or city and county to declare, prohibit

  12. Section 1263.210 - All improvements taken into account in determining compensation

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.210   Cited 9 times

    (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, all improvements pertaining to the realty shall be taken into account in determining compensation. (b) Subdivision (a) applies notwithstanding the right or obligation of a tenant, as against the owner of any other interest in real property, to remove such improvement at the expiration of his term. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 1263.210 Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  14. Rule 8.216 - Appeals in which a party is both appellant and respondent

    Cal. R. 8.216   Cited 19 times

    (a) Briefing sequence and time to file briefs In an appeal in which any party is both an appellant and a respondent: (1) The parties must jointly-or separately if unable to agree-submit a proposed briefing sequence to the reviewing court within 20 days after the second notice of appeal is filed. (2) After receiving the proposal, the reviewing court must order a briefing sequence and prescribe briefing periods consistent with rule 8.212(a). (3) Extensions of time are governed by rule 8.212(b). (Subd