Wilcox v. Birtwhistle
21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999) Cited 212 timesAcknowledging that, while not determinative, legislative silence after a court has construed a statute may give rise to an inference of acquiescence or passive approval
Batt v. City & County of San Francisco
155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 123 timesHolding that accounting "is not an independent cause of action but merely a type of remedy, an equitable remedy at that"
Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court
17 Cal.3d 803 (Cal. 1976) Cited 108 timesDistinguishing between a suit to "enforce lien" and a "suit for declaratory relief" as to the validity of the lien
Ardon v. City of Los Angeles
52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011) Cited 28 timesDiscussing substantial compliance under the CGCA
Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco
93 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 35 timesFlying Dutchman
Cty. Los Angeles v. Superior Court
159 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 23 timesNo. B198118. January 24, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BC334027 and BC334145, Emilie H. Elias, Judge. Jones Day, Elwood Lui and Brian D. Hershman for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Huskinson Brown, Paul E. Heidenreich, David W.T. Brown; Bernard Bernard and Stephen Bernard for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION CROSKEY, J. Joe Oronoz, Larry Pitts, Craig Kaufman, and Cheryl Kaufman filed two separate class action complaints against the County of Los Angeles
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
79 Cal.App.4th 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 21 timesConcluding that declaratory relief claim challenging the legality of ordinance establishing registration fee was moot where fee ordinance had been repealed
Volkswagen Pac., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
7 Cal.3d 48 (Cal. 1972) Cited 30 timesHolding limitations period in Government Code section 945.6 applies to a refund claim for local tax that is not governed by the Revenue and Taxation Code or other statute
Theisen v. County of Los Angeles
54 Cal.2d 170 (Cal. 1960) Cited 47 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Theisen, the general contractor agreed to purchase custom-made doors from Petterson Corporation (Petterson), who in turn contracted to purchase those doors from Durand.
Boyd Lovesee Lumber v. Western Pacific Financial
44 Cal.App.3d 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 11 timesIn Boyd Lovesee Lumber Co. v. Western Pacific Financial Corp. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 460, 465 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 699], the court observed that under the statute "[a] fair line is drawn between the contractors, subcontractors and materialmen on the one hand and the construction lenders on the other.
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
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)