§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF SAN JOSE (AFFORDABLE HOUSING NETWORK OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY)

Respondent’s Petition for Review

49 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,383 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  2. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,155 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings

  3. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City

    438 U.S. 104 (1978)   Cited 2,581 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding prohibition on construction of fifty-five-story office tower over New York's Grand Central Terminal is not a regulatory taking

  4. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 800 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

  5. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  6. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 293 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  7. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 449 times
    Holding that the terms camping, living, and store are not "vague ... when the purpose clause of the ordinance is considered and the terms are read in that context as they should be."

  8. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos

    53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 185 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that legislation dissolving community redevelopment agencies is constitutional and establishing a dissolution date of February 1, 2012, for all agencies.

  9. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  10. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren

    16 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 185 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parental consent law "intrude upon" a pregnant minor's "protected privacy interest under the California Constitution"

  11. Section 19

    Cal. Const. art. I § 19   Cited 618 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Taking property without just compensation

  12. Rule 8.264 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision

    Cal. R. 8.264   Cited 509 times

    (a)Filing the decision (1) The clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly file all opinions and orders of the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (2) A decision by opinion must identify the participating justices, including the author of the majority opinion and of any concurring or dissenting opinion, or the justices participating in a "by the court" opinion. (Subd (a) amended effective January

  13. 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