49 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 4,040 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not facially violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and, noting in support of its conclusion, it had previously "found no absolute constitutional barrier to detention of potentially dangerous resident aliens pending deportation proceedings"
  2. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 789 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "`substantially advances' formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence"
  3. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City

    438 U.S. 104 (1978)   Cited 2,154 times   37 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 673 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that city could not require development permit applicant to grant a public pathway easement where there was no reasonable relationship between the proposed development and the condition imposed
  5. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 814 times   48 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 94 times   10 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 346 times
    Holding that plaintiffs had not established that they lacked "alternatives to either the condition of being homeless or the conduct that led to homelessness and to the citations"
  8. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos

    53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 121 times   4 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 165 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Allowing initiative to amend Napa's general plan despite failure to comply with procedures county planning agency must follow to enact amendment
  10. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren

    16 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parental consent law "intrude upon" a pregnant minor's "protected privacy interest under the California Constitution"
  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,592 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

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

    Cal. R. 8.264   Cited 223 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 219 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