§Why CasetextPricing

McWILLIAMS v. CITY OF LONG BEACH

Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

72 Cited authorities

  1. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,258 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  2. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

    496 U.S. 18 (1990)   Cited 488 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the due process clause obligates states to "provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation" resulting from a tax statute

  3. Moore v. Regents of University of California

    51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 608 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in obtaining a patient's consent to a procedure, "a physician must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, whether research or economic, that may affect the physician's professional judgment"

  4. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.

    4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 508 times
    Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

  5. American Bankers Ins. Group v. U.S.

    408 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 330 times
    Holding doctrine not applicable to revenue ruling on long-distance phone calls in interpreting communications excise tax

  6. City of San Jose v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 707 times
    Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

  7. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  8. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra

    25 Cal.4th 809 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 271 times
    Holding that city's continued imposition and collection of a tax without voter approval was a continuous violation, and therefore limitations period began anew with each collection and did not bar claims for declaratory and mandamus relief

  9. People v. Cruz

    13 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 287 times
    Holding that burglary of an inhabited vessel constituted burglary of "an inhabited dwelling house"

  10. Horwich v. Superior Court

    21 Cal.4th 272 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 216 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Declining to resolve ambiguity in Proposition 213 by looking to "matters were not directly presented to the voters"

  11. Section 313 - Presentation of claims against governmental entity as prerequisite to commencement of action

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 313   Cited 14 times

    The general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against the State of California, counties, cities, cities and counties, districts, local authorities, and other political subdivisions of the State, and against the officers, employees, and servants thereof, is prescribed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 313 Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1715.

  12. 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)