14 Cited authorities

  1. Evans v. City of Berkeley

    38 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 405 times
    Rejecting allegation contradicted by judicially noticed facts
  2. Shapiro v. San Diego City Council

    96 Cal.App.4th 904 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 104 times

    D037323 Filed March 5, 2002 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. GIC 737965, Judith McConnell, Judge. Affirmed. Casey Gwinn, City Attorney and Leslie J. Girard, Assistant City Attorney for Defendant and Appellant. Charles Wolfinger for Plaintiff and Respondent. HUFFMAN, J. The defendant City Council of the City of San Diego (City Council) appeals a judgment issued under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) to compel

  3. Ampex Corp. v. Cargle

    128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that Yahoo!'s message board for Ampex is a public forum for purposes of section 425.16
  4. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co.

    11 Cal.4th 1049 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under Macri, § 11580.2(p) establishes a precondition to the accrual of the insured's right to coverage
  5. Trinity Park, L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale

    193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 38 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Approving judicial notice of official acts taken by a city
  6. Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto

    57 Cal.4th 1193 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sterling Park
  7. Love v. Superior Court

    226 Cal.App.3d 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that the legislature "identified sexual contact as a primary means of transmitting the AIDS virus and 'prostitutes who pass on the infection to their clients' as a specific group of concern"
  8. Watson v. Los Altos School Dist

    149 Cal.App.2d 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 41 times
    Ignoring contents of exhibits from prior case would be "travesty on justice"
  9. Edna Valley Ass'n v. San Luis Obispo Cty. & Cities Area Planning Coordinating Council

    67 Cal.App.3d 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. 48465. February 24, 1977. Appeal from Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. 45597, Richard C. Kirkpatrick, Judge. COUNSEL Crossman, Weaver Geihs and Paul A. Geihs for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Robert N. Tait, District Attorney, James B. Lindholm, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, and Joanne Fenton, Deputy District Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION COBEY, Acting P.J. Plaintiffs, Edna Valley Association and Albert C. LoMele, appeal from a judgment of dismissal of

  10. Section 452

    Cal. Evid. Code § 452   Cited 4,662 times
    Permitting judicial notice of, among other things, "(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy."
  11. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,252 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"
  12. Section 21000

    Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000   Cited 1,211 times   8 Legal Analyses

    The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. (b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. (c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment

  13. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 331 times   13 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: Secretary for Resources Room 1311, 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 These

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 1,489 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or