§Why CasetextPricing

EL-ATTAR v. HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER

Respondent’s Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  2. Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist.

    39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 262 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding hospital's peer review procedure qualifies as "official proceeding"

  3. People v. Shabazz

    38 Cal.4th 55 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 138 times
    Affirming imposition of both punishments upon the shooter in a gang-related murder but only analyzing whether the sentence was permissible under § 12022.53, subd. (j)

  4. Alexander v. Superior Court

    5 Cal.4th 1218 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 184 times
    Summarizing standards for issuance of peremptory writ in the first instance

  5. Arnett v. Dal Cielo

    14 Cal.4th 4 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 164 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Legislature might have believed the proposed provision unnecessary because law already so provided

  6. Unnamed Physician v. Board

    93 Cal.App.4th 607 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 111 times
    Requiring exhaustion of internal remedies "accords recognition to the 'expertise' of the organization's quasi-judicial tribunal"

  7. Smith v. Selma Community Hospital

    164 Cal.App.4th 1478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 69 times
    In Smith, the Court of Appeal was reviewing a governing board's decision reviewing a judicial review committee's decision.

  8. Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center

    27 Cal.3d 614 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that rules governing the admission of physicians cannot stand if the standard is unreasonably susceptible of arbitrary or discriminatory application

  9. Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp

    19 Cal.3d 802 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 154 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that administrative mandamus procedure applies to non-governmental agencies

  10. Rosenblit v. Superior Court

    231 Cal.App.3d 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that foundational factual findings material to whether an agency proceeded in the manner required by law are reviewed for substantial evidence

  11. Section 70703 - Organized Medical Staff

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 70703   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Each hospital shall have an organized medical staff responsible to the governing body for the adequacy and quality of the care rendered to patients. (1) The medical staff shall be composed of physicians and, where dental or podiatric services are provided, dentists or podiatrists. (2) As required by section 1316.5 of the Health and Safety Code: (A) Where clinical psychological services are provided by clinical psychologists, in a health facility owned and operated by the state, the facility shall

  12. Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication

    Cal. R. 8.1110   Cited 2,325 times

    (a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For

  13. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,086 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  14. 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

  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)