§Why CasetextPricing

CENTRAL COAST FOREST ASSOCIATION v. CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

Respondents' Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  2. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 469 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

  3. Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Murray, the California Supreme Court considered the preclusive effect of a federal agency’s investigative findings when the plaintiff had elected not to pursue a formal adjudicatory hearing or subsequent judicial review.

  4. Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

    37 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Water Resources Control Board have concurrent jurisdiction over timber harvesting activities which affect water resources

  5. Y.K.A. Industries, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose

    174 Cal.App.4th 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 88 times
    Saying a party who makes a prima facie showing is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law but is entitled to consideration by the trier of fact

  6. Morris v. Williams

    67 Cal.2d 733 (Cal. 1967)   Cited 222 times
    Holding that "[a]lthough a plaintiff ordinarily has the burden of proving every allegation of the complaint, . . . [w]here the evidence necessary to establish a fact essential to a claim lies peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of one of the parties, that party has the burden of going forward with the evidence"

  7. American Coatings Association, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality District

    54 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Contrasting standard applied in ordinary mandamus proceedings under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, and observing that traditional substantial evidence standard applies to judicial review of agency findings in an administrative mandamus proceeding under Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5

  8. Pitts v. Perluss

    58 Cal.2d 824 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 131 times
    In Pitts v. Perluss, supra, 58 Cal.2d at page 846, we stated: "Against the backdrop of the legislation and the director's execution of its policies, the regulation was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

  9. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com

    35 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S116081 May 19, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 315686, A. James Robertson II, Judge. Law Offices of Frank P. Angel, Frank P. Angel, Curtis M. Horton, Phyl van Ammers, Meredith Lobel-Angel and Edward Grutzmacher for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, J. Matthew Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Jamee Jordan Patterson and

  10. American Board of Cosmetic Surgery v. Medical Board

    162 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Discussing the different training and experience level of plastic surgeons and cosmetic surgeons and that plastic surgeons are more trained than cosmetic surgeons

  11. Section 424.11 - Factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species

    50 C.F.R. § 424.11   Cited 64 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Discussing circumstances in which a species "shall be listed or reclassified"

  12. Section 670.5 - Animals of California Declared To Be Endangered or Threatened

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 670.5   Cited 13 times

    The following species and subspecies are hereby declared to be endangered or threatened, as indicated: (a) Endangered: (1) Crustaceans: (A) California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) (B) Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) (2) Fishes: (A) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (B) Mohave tui chub (Gila bicolor mohavensis) (C) Owens tui chub (Gila bicolor snyderi) (D) Bonytail (Gila elegans) (E) Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) (F) Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) (G) Modoc sucker

  13. Section 670.1 - Listing of Endangered and Threatened Species

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 670.1   Cited 4 times

    (Note: These regulations were drafted to provide a petition form and rules and procedures governing the submission and review of petitions for listing, uplisting, downlisting and delisting of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. The intent of the 1994 amendments is a smoother and more effective implementation of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) through procedural clarity. While these amendments generally follow the chronology of the CESA statutes, they do not recreate

  14. Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.278   Cited 4,781 times

    (a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice