§Why CasetextPricing

STERLING PARK v. CITY OF PALO ALTO

Appellants’ Petition for Review

26 Cited authorities

  1. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.

    39 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 461 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to add an alter ego theory

  2. Oakland Raiders v. National Football League

    131 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 243 times
    Finding no principal and agent relationship between the Raiders and the NFL or the Raiders and the Commissioner of the NFL, in part because there are circumstances where the NFL is obligated under its constitution to take actions adverse to its member teams

  3. FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima

    231 Cal.App.3d 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 286 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment

  4. Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co.

    181 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the law's second and third sentences "provide that the consequence of nondelivery following the insured's request is that the application may not be introduced into evidence"

  5. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City

    12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 118 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the requirement to provide art or a cash equivalent is more akin to traditional land use regulations imposing minimal building setbacks, parking and lighting conditions, landscaping requirements, and other design conditions such as color schemes, building materials and architectural amenities. Such . . . conditions have long been held to be valid exercises of the city's traditional police power, and do not amount to a taking merely because they might incidentally . . . impose a cost in connection with the property."

  6. Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board

    1 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 92 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming issuance of mandate directing refund of school facility fee

  7. Cruey v. Gannett Co.

    64 Cal.App.4th 356 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that complaints to employers about workplace harassment should be conditionally privileged subject to a showing of malice

  8. Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

    37 Cal.4th 685 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that section 66014 covers fees for "zoning and building permits"

  9. Minton v. Cavaney

    56 Cal.2d 576 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 170 times
    Holding new defendant's supplying of funds for previous litigation was insufficient to show control over the litigation

  10. Geneva Towers Limited Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco

    29 Cal.4th 769 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Overturning the appellate court's decision to apply the catch-all provision because another more specific limitation period was applicable

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  12. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,089 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.1120 - Requesting publication of unpublished opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1120   Cited 141 times

    (a) Request (1) Any person may request that an unpublished opinion be ordered published. (2) The request must be made by a letter to the court that rendered the opinion, concisely stating the person's interest and the reason why the opinion meets a standard for publication. (3) The request must be delivered to the rendering court within 20 days after the opinion is filed. (4) The request must be served on all parties. (b) Action by rendering court (1) If the rendering court does not or cannot grant

  15. 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)