§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION v. MATOSANTOS

Petitioners' Partial Opposition

4 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Young

    34 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 2,831 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim that post-conviction counsel was "burdened by a conflict of interest" was not cognizable because there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings

  2. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

    181 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that the defendant's "alleged practice of categorically denying coverage" of certain services for autism-related disorders purportedly encompassed by the terms of a health care plan was sufficient to state a class action UCL claim

  3. People v. Castillo

    49 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 129 times
    Holding the Attorney General was judicially estopped from disavowing a stipulation calling for imposition of a two-year term of civil commitment of a sexually violent predator notwithstanding a change in intervening law (The Sexual Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's law, Proposition 83) that called for sexually violent predators to be committed indefinitely, even though "a stipulation similar to the one we consider in the present case now could not properly be negotiated, entered into, and enforced"

  4. In re Marriage of Pendleton

    24 Cal.4th 39 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying notice of letters to legislators, which opposed later-deleted bill text; it was "not apparent" letters were "considered by the Legislature when [the bill] was considered" and there was "no basis" to assume they "reflect legislative intent"