9 Cited authorities

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

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 583 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
  2. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 334 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
  3. 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."
  4. Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green

    91 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 168 times
    Holding with respect to court records; court may take judicial notice of existence of documents in court file, including the truth of results reached, but may not take notice of hearsay statements or allegations in affidavits or declarations "because such matters are reasonably subject to dispute and therefore require formal proof"
  5. Sosinsky v. Grant

    6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 191 times
    Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply
  6. Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist.

    170 Cal.App.4th 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In RiverWatch, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at page 1195, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 625, the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health certified a final EIR for and approved a landfill project.
  7. Katzeff v. Dep. of F F Pro

    181 Cal.App.4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    In Katzeff, the Court of Appeal considered "whether the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) properly granted an exemption allowing the harvesting of less than three acres of timber without environmental review, when one of the mitigation measures to two prior timber harvesting plans for the same property was that the trees in question remain in place to protect a neighboring property from excessive wind."
  8. Stafford v. Ware

    187 Cal.App.2d 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. 24509. December 8, 1960. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John F. Aiso, Judge. Affirmed. Guy N. Stafford, in pro. per., for Appellant. Walter W. Heil and James W. Edson for Respondents. BISHOP, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Abundant authorities, garnered from the appellate courts of this state, are available in support of either an affirmance or a reversal of the summary judgment from which the appeal is taken. [1a]

  9. Rule 3.1365 - Petitions under the California Environmental Quality Act

    Cal. R. 3.1365   Cited 6 times

    Rules for petitions for relief brought under the California Environmental Quality Act have been renumbered and moved to division 22 of these rules, beginning with rule 3.2200. Cal. R. Ct. 3.1365 Rule 3.1365 adopted effective 7/1/2014. Advisory Committee Comment Advisory Committee Comment Former rule 3.1365 on the form and format of administrative record lodged in a CEQA proceeding has been renumbered as rule 3.2205. .