§Why CasetextPricing

DiCAMPLI-MINTZ v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (To be called and continued to the October 2012 calendar.)

Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

38 Cited authorities

  1. Del Real v. City of Riverside

    95 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 436 times
    Recognizing the principle that an "appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error"

  2. City of San Jose v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 708 times
    Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

  3. Munoz v. State of California

    33 Cal.App.4th 1767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 316 times
    Finding no substantial compliance with claim presentation requirement where an application for leave to file a late claim was sent to California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi rather than the State Board of Control

  4. Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist.

    147 Cal.App.3d 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 210 times
    Holding that the general rule that the CTCA does not apply to claims for equitable relief "has no application . . . where a petition for extraordinary relief is merely incidental or ancillary to a prayer for damages," and the "primary purpose of claims is pecuniary in nature"

  5. Smiley v. Citibank

    11 Cal.4th 138 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 142 times
    Looking to the definition of “interest” at time when the relevant act was passed

  6. Finnie v. Jefferson County School District R-1

    79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 63 times
    Finding that, under Colorado's governmental immunity statute § 24–10–109, C.R.S. 2016, requires only substantial compliance despite the plain language of "shall"

  7. Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento

    152 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 53 times
    Rejecting argument that notice to a subordinate employee could satisfy § 915

  8. Costa v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.4th 986 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing procedural challenges to ballot initiatives

  9. Donohue v. State of California

    178 Cal.App.3d 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 76 times
    Finding no waiver where "[t]he insufficiency of plaintiff's claim lies in its failure to set forth the factual basis for recovery alleged in the complaint; defendant could not have discovered such defect until plaintiff filed his complaint"

  10. Page v. MiraCosta Community College Dist.

    180 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Cal. Gov't Code § 54960.1(c), (e)

  11. 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)