§Why CasetextPricing

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT v. STIGLITZ

Real Party in Interest, Kristy Drinkwater, Answer to Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. Pitchess v. Superior Court

    11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 2,715 times
    Concluding defendant made a good faith showing in support of his discovery motion where "the information which defendant seeks may have considerable significance to the preparation of his defense, and the documents have been requested with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that defendant is engaging in a 'fishing expedition' "

  2. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 513 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

  3. Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron

    177 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 233 times
    Noting that if an appellant fails to support a claim with reasoned argument and citations to authority the court of appeal may treat that claim as waived

  4. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court

    49 Cal.3d 74 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 413 times
    Holding courts "need not speculate . . . as to the Legislature's intentions," where "the Legislature [has] expressly considered and rejected [particular proposed language]"

  5. Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City

    34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 252 times
    Confirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history

  6. People v. Woodhead

    43 Cal.3d 1002 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 359 times
    Noting the term "convicted" "may have different meanings in different contexts, or even different meanings within a single statute"

  7. Baggett v. Gates

    32 Cal.3d 128 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 238 times
    Upholding imposition of state procedural protections for peace officers before they could be removed or punished, finding the maintenance of stable employment relations between police officers and their public employers was a matter of statewide concern given the impact a breakdown in relations would have on delivery of the police’s essential public service

  8. Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland

    111 Cal.App.4th 1294 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing statute that allows officer to select representative of choice during interrogation to include reasonableness limitation; officer may not pick a representative who is not available and thereby prevent interrogation from happening

  9. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

    40 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 56 times
    In Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585, 145 P.3d 462, which Mercury cites for the proposition that reversal is "required" where an agency communicates ex parte with the decision maker and violates the separation of rulemaking and adjudicative functions, the communication was on the merits after a full hearing was completed.

  10. Talmo v. Civil Service Com

    231 Cal.App.3d 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 89 times
    Finding issue of whether commission abused its discretion "now ripe for appellate review" [from trial court's order following civil service commission's post-remand decision]

  11. 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)