31 Cited authorities

  1. Cel-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,981 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equal

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 549 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”
  3. People ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Company

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 443 times

    S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief

  4. People v. Hudson

    38 Cal.4th 1002 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 311 times
    Holding that “for purposes of section 2800.1, a pursuing peace officer's vehicle is ‘distinctively marked’ if its outward appearance during the pursuit exhibits, in addition to a red light and a siren, one or more features that are reasonably visible to other drivers and distinguish it from vehicles not used for law enforcement so as to give reasonable notice to the fleeing motorist that the pursuit is by the police”
  5. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 194 times
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."
  6. Singh v. Southland Stone

    186 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 160 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that special verdict that defendant made no misrepresentations was inconsistent with special verdict that defendant made intentional misrepresentations when both claims were based on same factual allegations
  7. People v. Pieters

    52 Cal.3d 894 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 256 times
    Referring to sections 12022.7 and 12022.9 as enhancements for “infliction of great bodily injury”
  8. Calif. Fed. Svg. Loan v. City of L.A

    11 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting postjudgment interest "reduces the incentive to delay payment" and "serves to adequately compensate plaintiffs"
  9. E.P.I. Center v. C.F.F.P

    44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR
  10. Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 80 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Apple, the court noted that the Act made no mention of online commercial transactions, and predated the prevalence of such transactions by a decade.
  11. Section 1859.31 - Gross Classroom Inventory

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 1859.31   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The district shall prepare a gross inventory consisting of all classrooms owned or leased in the district, the HSAA or Super HSAA as appropriate. For the purpose of this gross classroom inventory, the following shall be considered a classroom. Any classroom: (a) for which a contract was signed for the construction or acquisition of facilities or for which construction work has commenced at the time the SFP application for determination of eligibility is submitted to the OPSC; (b) constructed with

  12. Section 11969.3 - Conditions Reasonably Equivalent

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5 § 11969.3   Cited 5 times

    The following provisions shall be used to determine whether facilities provided to a charter school are sufficient to accommodate charter school students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending public schools of the school district providing facilities, as required by Education Code section 47614(b). (a) Comparison Group. (1) The standard for determining whether facilities are sufficient to accommodate charter school students

  13. Section 11969.1 - Purpose and Stipulation

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5 § 11969.1   Cited 2 times

    (a) This article governs provision of facilities by school districts to charter schools under Education Code section 47614. (b) If a charter school and a school district mutually agree to an alternative to specific compliance with any of the provisions of this article, nothing in this article shall prohibit implementation of that alternative, including, for example, funding in lieu of facilities in an amount commensurate with local rental or lease costs for facilities reasonably equivalent to facilities

  14. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 1,497 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

  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 236 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