§Why CasetextPricing

SAN DIEGO, CITY OF v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Respondent’s Opposition to the Request for Judicial Notice of the Motion to Augment the Record on Appeal that was

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  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. Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (Luis Turcios)

    48 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 144 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "an arbitrator whose legal error has barred an employee subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement from obtaining a hearing on the merits of a claim based on [an unwaivable statutory right, i.e., the right to be free from unlawful discrimination under FEHA] has exceeded his or her powers . . . and the arbitrator's award may properly be vacated"

  4. Porterville Citizens v. Porterville

    157 Cal.App.4th 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 118 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Porterville, the trial court's tentative statement of decision failed to expressly rule on a cause of action alleging a violation of provisions in the Subdivision Map Act and the municipal code.

  5. City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    39 Cal.4th 341 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 80 times   19 Legal Analyses
    In City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341 our Supreme Court described the rules that governed the development of the Ford Ord property in 2006: "Fort Ord is a former United States Army base on the Pacific Coast, about five miles north of Monterey and 125 miles south of San Francisco....

  6. Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside

    48 Cal.3d 84 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 71 times
    Explaining how the State Board analyzes complex corporate transactions to determine whether they constitute a change in ownership and then sends an advisory letter to the assessors regarding reassessment

  7. 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.

  8. Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority

    174 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Health First, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at page 1141, the court considered whether an agency's approval of a design plan application for a large warehouse facility constituted a discretionary action under CEQA, such that the agency would be required to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR if one of the circumstances specified in section 21166 had occurred.

  9. Rule 8.512 - Ordering review

    Cal. R. 8.512   Cited 3,561 times

    (a) Transmittal of record On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal if the record was transmitted in paper form. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b)Determination

  10. 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

  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)