§Why CasetextPricing

LOS ANGELES, CITY OF v. COUNTY OF KERN

Appellants’ Petition for Review

49 Cited authorities

  1. Mine Workers v. Gibbs

    383 U.S. 715 (1966)   Cited 17,736 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supplemental jurisdiction is a "doctrine of discretion"

  2. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

    420 U.S. 469 (1975)   Cited 945 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a radio station could not constitutionally be held liable for broadcasting the name of a rape victim, because the victim's name was contained in public records

  3. Raygor v. Regents of University of Minnesota

    534 U.S. 533 (2002)   Cited 392 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court even where 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in general, authorizes supplemental jurisdiction

  4. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,294 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

  5. Jinks v. Richland County

    538 U.S. 456 (2003)   Cited 262 times
    Holding that a statute is authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause when it “provides an alternative to [otherwise] unsatisfactory options” that are “obviously inefficient”

  6. Action v. City of Santa Monica

    41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 454 times
    Recognizing exceptions to the litigation privilege when the statute is more specific than the litigation privilege and would be significantly or wholly inoperable if its enforcement were barred when in conflict with the privilege

  7. Chardon v. Fumero Soto

    462 U.S. 650 (1983)   Cited 240 times
    Upholding a similar Puerto Rico statute as an acceptable substitute for American Pipe tolling

  8. Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara

    7 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 419 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding judgment not appealable where it did not complete disposition of all causes of action

  9. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV

    52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 453 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act

  10. Elsner v. Uveges

    34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 274 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding enrolled bill reports prepared after a bill's passage instructive on matters of legislative intent

  11. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,495 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  12. Section 1257 - State courts; certiorari

    28 U.S.C. § 1257   Cited 3,596 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a final judgment rendered by the highest state court may only be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court

  13. Section 6901 - Congressional findings

    42 U.S.C. § 6901   Cited 1,277 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Noting the "rising tide of scrap, discarded, and waste materials"

  14. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 7   Cited 443 times
    Providing that " county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws"

  15. Section 503.9 - General definitions

    40 C.F.R. § 503.9   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Apply sewage sludge or sewage sludge applied to the land means land application of sewage sludge. (b)Base flood is a flood that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year (i.e., a flood with a magnitude equalled once in 100 years). (c)Class I sludge management facility is any publicly owned treatment works (POTW), as defined in 40 CFR 501.2 , required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403.8(a) (including any POTW located in a State that has elected to assume local

  16. Section 503.13 - Pollutant limits

    40 C.F.R. § 503.13   Cited 7 times
    Setting ceilings for amount of these chemicals present in sewage sludge

  17. Section 503.32 - Pathogens

    40 C.F.R. § 503.32   Cited 6 times

    (a)Sewage sludge-Class A. (1) The requirement in § 503.32(a)(2) and the requirements in either § 503.32(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), or (a)(8) shall be met for a sewage sludge to be classified Class A with respect to pathogens. (2) The Class A pathogen requirements in § 503.32 (a)(3) through (a)(8) shall be met either prior to meeting or at the same time the vector attraction reduction requirements in § 503.33 , except the vector attraction reduction requirements in § 503.33 (b)(6) through

  18. 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)