§Why CasetextPricing

BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY

Respondents, City of Berkeley, City Council of the City of Berkeley, and Freada Kapor-Klein, and Real Party in Interest, Mitchell D. Kapor, Petition for Review

25 Cited authorities

  1. Kowis v. Howard

    3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 518 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule

  2. Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.

    133 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 203 times
    Denying request for judicial notice for failure to show the "Fact Sheet" was communicated to the Legislature as a whole

  3. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist.

    139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 142 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley USD (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1368, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, the issue was the decision to close two elementary schools.

  4. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission

    41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 129 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Muzzy Ranch, we were concerned with the level of detail required to apply the commonsense exemption from CEQA review.

  5. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors

    8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 342 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"

  6. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 270 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Professing no “ question” of trial court's power in traditional mandamus to order interlocutory remand to agency for clarification of findings

  7. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency

    103 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 92 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding invalidation of certain CEQA Guidelines

  8. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com

    13 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "plaintiffs have standing 'to procure enforcement of a public duty, . . .'"

  9. Hillcrest v. City

    139 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 77 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding comment that "`there ha also been a project splitting, ignoring environmental issues such as traffic and light, ignoring unusual issues . . ., ignoring the cumulative effects and so on . . .'" did not preserve petitioner's piecemealing claim

  10. 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

  11. 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