§Why CasetextPricing

ORANGE CITIZENS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION v. S.C. (MILAN REI IV)

Petitioners’ Petition for Review

32 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.4th 1036 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 255 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no constitutional impediment in permitting non-Californians a right of action under a domestic statute because California had a "clear and substantial interest in preventing fraudulent practices in this state," or in "extending state-created remedies to out-of-state parties harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California."

  3. Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles

    126 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 205 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth elements of res judicata under California law

  4. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 284 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to make a timely comment does not excuse the lead agency from providing substantial evidence to fulfill its duty to identify and discuss project alternatives

  5. Profes'l Engineers v. Kempton

    40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 163 times
    In Kempton we concluded that both Government Code sections 14101 and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35. (Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1037-1041.)

  6. 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"

  7. California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 180 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Detailing amendment history

  8. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 120 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"

  9. San Franciscans v. City Cty., San Francisco

    102 Cal.App.4th 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 132 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "commercial and retail space" in describing downtown San Francisco's preservation policies

  10. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 112 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding mitigation measure that requires construction to "meet 'exterior and interior noise standards' satisfactory to the manager of the county's building permit division insufficient" because "[n]o criteria or alternatives to be considered are set out. Rather, this mitigation measure does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards."

  11. 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