§Why CasetextPricing

FRIENDS OF THE COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO GARDENS v. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  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. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 270 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Professing no “ question” of trial court's power in traditional mandamus to order interlocutory remand to agency for clarification of findings

  4. California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District

    62 Cal.4th 369 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 83 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Finding deference warranted under Yamaha to an agency interpretation adopted by regulation and observing that notice-and-comment rulemaking under the California Administrative Procedure Act “subjects potential agency interpretations to procedural safeguards that foster accuracy and reliability”

  5. Bowman v. City of Petaluma

    185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 73 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Using an addendum to determine whether further environmental review is necessary is an appropriate way to fill a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines

  6. Benton v. Board of Supervisors

    226 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 46 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Benton, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481, for example, the Court of Appeal considered whether a proposal to relocate a winery that had previously been approved via negative declaration required the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Benton held that, under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the question whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR was required depended on the effect of the proposed relocation; the changes were not an occasion to reopen the original environmental review of the winery project.