27 Cited authorities

  1. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 324 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule
  2. Kaufman Broad Comm. v. Per. Plast

    133 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 163 times

    No. C049391 October 3, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 03AS03133, Loren E. McMaster, Judge. OPINION SIMS, J. Pursuant to rule 22(a) of the California Rules of Court, appellant Performance Plastering, Inc., has moved this court to take judicial notice of various documents that, in the view of appellant, constitute cognizable legislative history of a 1998 amendment to Revenue and Taxation Code section 19719 (Assembly Bill No. 1950 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) (Assem. Bill No

  3. 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"
  4. San Lorenzo v. San Lorenzo

    139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 105 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In San Lorenzo, the court summarized its interpretation of the class 14 exemption as follows: "A school closure and accompanying transfer of students is exempt from CEQA so long as any resulting physical changes are categorically exempt.
  5. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 240 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In NoOil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66] (No Oil, Inc.), discussing whether the proper scope of an EIR included possible related future actions, we quoted this observation from a federal decision: "`Statements must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but they must be written early enough so that whatever information is contained can practically serve as an input into the decision making process.'"
  6. Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County

    41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 89 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Muzzy Ranch, we were concerned with the level of detail required to apply the commonsense exemption from CEQA review.
  7. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency

    103 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 81 times   3 Legal Analyses

    C038844 Filed October 28, 2002 Certified for Publication Modified November 21, 2002 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 00CS00300, Ronald B. Robie, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Anne E. Simon for Plaintiff and Appellant Communities for a Better Environment. Law Offices of Sharon E. Duggan and Sharon E. Duggan for Plaintiff and Appellant Environmental Protection Information Center. Shute, Mihaly Weinberger, Ellison Folk and Marlena G. Byrne for Plaintiffs

  8. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com

    13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "plaintiffs have standing `to procure enforcement of a public duty, . . .'"
  9. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering

    18 Cal.3d 190 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 150 times
    In Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205–206, 132 Cal.Rptr. 377, 553 P.2d 537 (Chickering), we said that “no regulation is valid if its issuance exceeds the scope of the enabling statute.
  10. Hillcrest v. City

    139 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 53 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. D046360. May 8, 2006. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. GIC823865, Ronald S. Prager, Judge. Johnson Hanson, Kevin K. Johnson and Jared Phil Hanson for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael J. Aguirre, City Attorney, and Joe B. Cordileone, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, Monty A. McIntyre and G. Scott Williams for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. OPINION IRION, J. In this appeal we are asked to decide whether respondent

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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