§Why CasetextPricing

TUOLUMNE JOBS & SMALL BUSINESS ALLIANCE v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Opening Brief on the Merits

42 Cited authorities

  1. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,180 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 at pages 587 through 588, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, the court, citing language from Labor Council, held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which applies to public works, for the construction of student and staff housing.

  2. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 754 times   2 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"

  3. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 888 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.”

  4. 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"

  5. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 620 times   23 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

  6. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 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 287 times   4 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 287 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 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although initiative measure's title and summary were technically imprecise, they substantially complied with the law

  10. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  11. Section 1858 - Office of judge in construction of statute or instrument

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1858   Cited 889 times
    Interpreting statutes

  12. Section 1859 - Intention of Legislature or intention of parties in construction of statute or instrument

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1859   Cited 577 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing in part: "In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature . . . 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."

  13. Section 8

    Cal. Const. art. II § 8   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Outlining initiative process for amending the state constitution

  14. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. II § 11   Cited 63 times

    (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter. (b) A city or county initiative measure shall not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage

  15. Section 15002 - General Concepts

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15002   Cited 34 times
    Describing three-step process

  16. Section 15063 - Initial Study

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15063   Cited 32 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

  17. Section 15060 - Preliminary Review

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15060   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing preliminary review

  18. Section 15369 - Ministerial

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15369   Cited 9 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

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

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15074   Cited 3 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

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

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15107   Cited 1 times

    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 1

  21. 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)