40 Cited authorities

  1. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 797 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, the plaintiff alleged the hospital district's failure to perform a mandatory duty resulted in workers receiving "less than the prevailing wage while engaged on a public work."
  2. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 772 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”
  3. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 537 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
  4. Laurel Heights Improv. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 462 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects
  5. Moore v. Regents of University of California

    51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 429 times
    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"
  6. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"
  7. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 237 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”
  8. People v. Cruz

    13 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 235 times
    Holding that burglary of an inhabited vessel constituted burglary of "an inhabited dwelling house"
  9. Amador Valley Jt. Un. High Sch. v. State Bd. of Equal

    22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 372 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Amador ValleyJoint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 230-231, in which Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional, this test was employed along with the reasonably germane test.
  10. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 166 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Allowing initiative to amend Napa's general plan despite failure to comply with procedures county planning agency must follow to enact amendment
  11. Section 1858

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1858   Cited 619 times
    In Code of Civil Procedure section 1858, the Legislature stated that courts do not have the authority "to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted" in a statute.
  12. Section 1859

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1859   Cited 418 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature, and in the construction of the instrument the intention of the parties, is to be pursued, if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 1859

  13. Section 15002 - General Concepts

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15002   Cited 24 times

    (a) Basic Purposes of CEQA. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4) Disclose

  14. Section 15063 - Initial Study

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15063   Cited 22 times

    (a) Following preliminary review, the lead agency shall conduct an initial study determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will clearly be required for the project, an initial study is not required but may still be desirable. (1) All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project. (2) To meet the requirements of this section, the lead agency may use an environmental

  15. Section 15060 - Preliminary Review

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15060   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) A lead agency is allowed 30 days to review for completeness applications for permits or other entitlements for use. While conducting this review for completeness, the agency should be alert for environmental issues that might require preparation of an EIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the authority of the lead agency to require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of

  16. Section 15369 - Ministerial

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15369   Cited 6 times

    "Ministerial" describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should

  17. Section 15074 - Consideration and Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15074   Cited 1 times

    (a) Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decisionmaking body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. (b) Prior to approving a project, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration

  18. Section 15107 - Completion of Negative Declaration for Certain Private Projects

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15107

    With private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the negative declaration must be completed and approved within 180 days from the date when the lead agency accepted the application as complete. Lead agency procedures may provide that the 180-day time limit may be extended once for a period of not more than 90 days upon consent of the lead agency and the applicant. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15107 Note:

  19. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 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)