§Why CasetextPricing

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY)

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Review

41 Cited authorities

  1. Garcia v. McCutchen

    16 Cal.4th 469 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 349 times
    Holding that implied repeal will be found only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing two potentially conflicting statutes

  2. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  3. Bixby v. Pierno

    4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 624 times
    In Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 (Bixby), the leading modern case discussing and explaining the independent judgment test, we quoted with approval Drummey's statement that in applying "`independent judgment,'" a trial court must accord a "`strong presumption of... correctness'" to administrative findings, and that the "burden rests" upon the complaining party to show that the administrative "`decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.'"

  4. Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco

    49 Cal.3d 881 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 280 times
    Holding bank's electronic data processing equipment was erroneously classified as a fixture, and was, instead, personal property

  5. California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com

    24 Cal.3d 836 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 182 times

    Docket Nos. S.F. 23823, 23881. August 15, 1979. COUNSEL Gordon E. Davis, William H. Booth, Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, Robert D. Raven, James J. Garrett, Charles R. Farrar, James P. Bennett, Morrison Foerster, Robert L. Schmalz, J. Randolph Elliott, John L. Frogge, Jr., Kenneth M. Robinson, Donald H. Ford, Overton, Lyman Prince and Bill B. Betz for Petitioners. Janice E. Kerr, Hector Anninos, Timothy E. Treacy and Walter H. Kessenick for Respondents. Malcolm H. Furbush, Robert Ohlbach, Shirley A.

  6. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Pub. Util. Com

    25 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary denial of a petition for review is res judicata where such a petition is the only means for appeal

  7. Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Emergency Med

    45 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 57 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Looking to the Knox–Keene Act as a whole to conclude that one of its provisions, Health & Saf.Code, § 1379, applied to a situation that did not exist at the time of its enactment

  8. PG&E Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

    118 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting writ of review but denying relief

  9. San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist.

    46 Cal.4th 822 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 44 times
    Describing three categories under California and Federal case law

  10. McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group

    48 Cal.4th 104 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. S164692. February 18, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Alameda County, No. RG05219163, Robert B. Freedman, Judge. Weinberg, Roger Rosenfeld and David A. Rosenfeld for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky Walker, J. Al Latham, Jr., Thomas E. Geidt, Laura N. Monfredini and Paul W. Cane, Jr., for Defendants and Respondents. Erika C. Frank for California Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Seyfarth Shaw, Stacy D. Shartin, John A. Van

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XII § 1   Cited 58 times

    The Public Utilities Commission consists of 5 members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring, for staggered 6-year terms. A vacancy is filled for the remainder of the term. The Legislature may remove a member for incompetence, neglect of duty, or corruption, two thirds of the membership of each house concurring. Cal. Const. art. XII § 1

  12. Section 1.3 - (Rule 1.3) Definitions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20 § 1.3   Cited 1 times

    (a) "Adjudicatory proceedings" are: (1) enforcement investigations into possible violations of any provision of statutory law or order or rule of the Commission; and (2) complaints against regulated entities, including those complaints that challenge the accuracy of a bill, but excluding those complaints that challenge the reasonableness of rates or charges, past, present, or future. (b) "Catastrophic wildfire proceedings" are proceedings in which an electrical corporation files an application to

  13. Section 11.2 - (Rule 11.2) Motion to Dismiss

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20 § 11.2

    A motion to dismiss a proceeding based on the pleadings (other than a motion based upon a lack of jurisdiction) shall be made no later than five days prior to the first day of hearing. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 20, § 11.2 1. Renumbering of former section 56 to new section 11.2, including amendment of section heading and section and new NOTE filed 9-13-2006; operative 9-13-2006 pursuant to Government Code section 11351(a) (Register 2006, No. 37). Note: Authority cited: Section 1701, Public Utilities Code

  14. Section 3.2 - (Rule 3.2) Authority to Increase Rates

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20 § 3.2

    (a) Applications for authority to increase rates, or to implement changes that would result in increased rates, shall contain the following data, either in the body of the application or as exhibits annexed thereto or accompanying the application: (1) A balance sheet as of the latest available date, together with an income statement covering period from close of last year for which an annual report has been filed with the Commission to the date of the balance sheet attached to the application. (2)

  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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

  16. 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)

  17. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective

  18. Rule 8.496 - Renumbered

    Cal. R. 8.496

    Cal. R. Ct. 8.496 Rule 8.496 renumbered as rule 8.724. effective 4/25/2019