52 Cited authorities

  1. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 559 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant
  2. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 595 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects
  3. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 424 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"
  4. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore

    49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that § 425.17, subd. (c) did not apply when " ‘the representation was not "about" [defendant's] or a competitor's services or business operations’ "
  5. People v. Cornett

    53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 154 times
    Holding "'10 years of age or younger' as used in section 288.7 to be another means of saying 'under 11 years of age'"
  6. Wallace v. McCubbin

    196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 154 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing denial of motion to strike wrongful eviction complaint where the alleged wrongdoing was the service of a three-day notice to quit and filing of an unlawful detainer action
  7. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist.

    139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Calculating impact of student transfers based on receptor school's “current capacity”
  8. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish Game Com

    16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 171 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., supra, the Supreme Court embraced this functional distinction between discretionary and ministerial projects, observing as follows: "The statutory distinction between discretionary and purely ministerial projects implicitly recognizes that unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise."
  9. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach

    52 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 112 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Summarizing principles of standing under CEQA
  10. In re J. W.

    29 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 140 times
    Referring to the "principle, commonly known under the Latin name of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ... that the expression of one thing in a statute ordinarily implies the exclusion of other things"
  11. Section 15061 - Review for Exemption

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15061   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) Once a lead agency has determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, a lead agency shall determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA. (b) A project is exempt from CEQA if: (1) The project is exempt by statute (see, e.g. Article 18, commencing with Section 15260 ). (2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with Section 15300 ) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section

  12. Section 15126.2 - Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.2   Cited 6 times

    (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis

  13. Section 15260 - General

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15260   Cited 2 times

    This article describes the exemptions from CEQA granted by the Legislature. The exemptions take several forms. Some exemptions are complete exemptions from CEQA. Other exemptions apply to only part of the requirements of CEQA, and still other exemptions apply only to the timing of CEQA compliance. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15260 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21080(b), Public Resources Code. 1. New Article 18 (Sections 15260-15277) filed 7-13-83;

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 305 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

  15. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 15 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)