§Why CasetextPricing

BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY

Appellants’ Answer to Petition for Review

4 Cited authorities

  1. Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources

    83 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Planning & Conservation League

  2. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering

    18 Cal.3d 190 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting federal functional equivalent test in light of enactment of section 21080.5

  3. Centinela Hospital Assn. v. City of Inglewood

    225 Cal.App.3d 1586 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 32 times

    Docket No. B047219. December 10, 1990. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C716695, Kurt J. Lewin, Judge. COUNSEL Manatt, Phelps Phillips, Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg Phillips, Alan I. Rothenberg, Sherwin L. Memel, Philip R. Recht, Diane L. Faber, Cox, Castle Nicholson, Kenneth B. Bley and Eric Tuckman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Howard Rosten, City Attorney, and Jack Ballas, Chief Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Richards, Watson Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott

  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