39 Cited authorities

  1. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 207 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation
  2. Garcia v. McCutchen

    16 Cal.4th 469 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 244 times
    Holding that implied repeal will be found only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing two potentially conflicting statutes
  3. Bixby v. Pierno

    4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 511 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 Cty. of San Francisco

    49 Cal.3d 881 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 194 times
    In Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 264 Cal.Rptr. 139, 782 P.2d 278 (Crocker), we set forth the general principles governing the selection of a standard of appellate review.
  5. California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com

    24 Cal.3d 836 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 167 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 132 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. McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group

    48 Cal.4th 104 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 44 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

  8. Prospect Medical Group v. Northridge Emergency Med

    45 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 41 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that regulations in California require an HMO to pay "the reasonable and customary value for the health care services rendered"
  9. PG&E Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

    118 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. A099858, A099864, A100892, A100895, A100896, A100897 May 21, 2004. Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, Frederick Brown, William F. Alderman, Howard M. Ullman, David T. Alexander, Joseph M. Malkin; Bruce Worthington and Gary P. Encinas for Petitioner PGE Corporation. Munger Tolles Olson, Henry Weissmann, Jeffrey L. Bleich, Beng-Soo Kim; and Barbara E. Mathews for Petitioner Edison International. David E. Van Iderstine for Petitioner Southern California Edison Company. O'Melveny Myers, John W. Stamper

  10. San Leandro Teachers v. Governing Board

    209 P.3d 73 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 36 times
    Describing three categories under California and Federal case law
  11. Section 1.3 - (Rule 1.3) Definitions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20 § 1.3

    (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) "Category," "categorization," or "categorized" refers to the procedure whereby a proceeding is determined to be

  12. 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 Note: Authority cited: Section 1701, Public Utilities Code. Reference: Section 1701, Public Utilities Code. 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

  13. 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)

  14. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,663 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 4 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