§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondent’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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....

  2. Sheeler v. Greystone Homes, Inc.

    113 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    In Sheeler, the plaintiffs argued that their negligence claims fell "outside the limitations on hirer liability in Privette and its progeny" because, unlike the situations in Privette and the California Supreme Court's cases following Privette, "Sheeler's injuries [were] not traceable to negligence by his own employer."

  3. People v. Superior Court (Persons)

    56 Cal.App.3d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. 38395. March 12, 1976. Page 192 COUNSEL Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Derald E. Granberg and Timothy A. Reardon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Robert Nicco, Public Defender, Perker L. Meeks, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Mazer Parnes, Richard B. Mazer and Steven W. Parnes for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION CHRISTIAN, J. Petitioners, the People

  4. 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

  5. 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)