§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

41 Cited authorities

  1. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 800 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

  2. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. County of San Diego v. State

    164 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 173 times
    Denying request for judicial notice as unnecessary

  6. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 284 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to make a timely comment does not excuse the lead agency from providing substantial evidence to fulfill its duty to identify and discuss project alternatives

  7. E.P.I. Center v. C.F.F.P

    44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR

  8. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 120 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"

  9. 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.

  10. Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson

    30 Cal.3d 721 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that apartment complex could not, under the Unruh Act, prohibit families with children

  11. Section 12

    Cal. Const. art. IV § 12   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Within the first 10 days of each calendar year, the Governor shall submit to the Legislature, with an explanatory message, a budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. If recommended expenditures exceed estimated revenues, the Governor shall recommend the sources from which the additional revenues should be provided. (b) The Governor and the Governor-elect may require a state agency, officer or employee to

  12. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 557 times   13 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES ROOM 1311, 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 These

  13. Section 15126.4 - Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing measures that can achieve preservation in place

  14. Section 40000 - Campus

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5 § 40000

    As used in this Chapter, the term "campus" shall mean any of the institutions included within the California State University, as specified in Section 89001 of the Education Code. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 40000 1. New Subchapter 1 (Section 40000) filed 8-22-72; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 72, No. 35). 2. Amendment of section and NOTE filed 4-29-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 18). 3. Amendment of NOTE filed 3-19-82; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or