§Why CasetextPricing

TOMLINSON v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Real Parties’ in Interest Petition for Review

53 Cited authorities

  1. Nwosu v. Uba

    122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 1,569 times
    Noting that the California Rules of Court require factual assertions to be supported by citations to the record

  2. State v. Superior Court

    32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,353 times
    Holding that "failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action"

  3. Benach v. County of Los Angeles

    149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 900 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding photocopying costs for exhibits prepared for use at trial were recoverable under discretionary provision of § 1033.5, subd. (c)

  4. People v. Dieck

    46 Cal.4th 934 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 416 times
    Recognizing that these presentence credits are collectively referred to as conduct credits

  5. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 584 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  6. Foreman Clark Corp. v. Fallon

    3 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 1,273 times
    Rejecting claim "evidence should not have been considered since the other leases predated the breach by almost two years[]" because "[t]his merely went to the weight which the trier of fact, in its discretion, gave to the evidence"

  7. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 172 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR that briefly explained elimination of three possible alternatives

  8. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  9. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 171 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203-1204, the court rejected Bakersfield's argument that the appeal, which challenged project approvals for two retail shopping centers, was rendered moot by the completion of the project. The court held that while the shopping centers were complete and several businesses were already in operation, the appeal was not moot because, among other reasons, "even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance."

  10. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist.

    139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 142 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley USD (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1368, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, the issue was the decision to close two elementary schools.

  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 557 times   13 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES ROOM 1311, 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 These

  12. Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15332   Cited 13 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare

  13. Section 15300 - Categorical Exemptions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15300   Cited 13 times

    Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires these guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources has found that the following classes of projects listed in this article do not have a significant effect on the environment, and they are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement

  14. Section 15062 - Notice of Exemption

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15062   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) When a public agency decides that a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061, and the public agency approves or determines to carry out the project, the agency may, file a notice of exemption. The notice shall be filed, if at all, after approval of the project. Such a notice shall include: (1) A brief description of the project, (2) The location of the project (either by street address and cross street for a project in an urbanized area or by attaching a specific map, preferably

  15. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)