§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondent’s Petition for Review

56 Cited authorities

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,916 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  2. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 403 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

  3. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 621 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects

  4. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 518 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule

  5. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 335 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

  6. 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."

  7. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 172 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR that briefly explained elimination of three possible alternatives

  8. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  9. People v. Byrd

    89 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 192 times
    Upholding sentence of 444 years to life plus 115 years for third striker who committed 12 armed robberies

  10. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 171 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203-1204, the court rejected Bakersfield's argument that the appeal, which challenged project approvals for two retail shopping centers, was rendered moot by the completion of the project. The court held that while the shopping centers were complete and several businesses were already in operation, the appeal was not moot because, among other reasons, "even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance."

  11. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. XVI § 7   Cited 29 times

    Money may be drawn from the Treasury only through an appropriation made by law and upon a Controller's duly drawn warrant. Cal. Const. art. XVI § 7

  12. Section 15384 - Substantial Evidence

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384   Cited 53 times

    (a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is

  13. 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

  14. 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)