54 Cited authorities

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

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 3,429 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California trial court is bound by decisions of state supreme court and courts of appeal
  2. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 309 times   15 Legal Analyses
    In Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pages 439–442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709, the Final EIR provided conflicting figures concerning both expected water supply and expected water demand, and gave estimates contrary to a related environmental report.
  3. Laurel Heights Improv. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 472 times   17 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 330 times   1 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 242 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. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 159 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Save Our Peninsula, the EIR indicated increased groundwater pumping would need to be mitigated; but, the applicants did not identify an offsetting pumping location until after the close of the comment periods.
  7. In re Tobacco Cases II

    41 Cal.4th 1257 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S129522. August 2, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego County, JCCP No. 4042, Ronald S. Prager, Judge. Blumenthal Markham, Norman B. Blumenthal, David R. Markham, Kyle R. Nordrehaug; Thorsnes, Bartolotta McGuire, Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., John F. McGuire, Karen Frostrom; Chavez Gertler, Mark A. Chavez; and Thomas E. Sharkey for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, William N. Brieger, Acting Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tom Greene

  8. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 121 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Sierra Club v. City ofOrange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, the city set forth in a footnote its claim that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.
  9. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors

    8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 319 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the agency "is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation is instituted . . .," but it is sufficient if other members of the public raised the issues to be litigated because then the agency would have had "its opportunity to act and to render the litigation unnecessary, if it had chosen to do so"
  10. Voices of Wetlands v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

    52 Cal.4th 499 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 105 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Wetlands, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had the authority to remand the proceeding back to the agency before entering judgment to consider whether there was evidentiary support for a particular factual finding made by the agency.
  11. Section 15384 - Substantial Evidence

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384   Cited 41 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

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 229 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

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)