§Why CasetextPricing

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

Real Parties in Interest, City of Bellflower, City of Carson, City of Commerce, City of Covina, City of Downey, City of Signal Hill, and County of Los Angeles, Reply Brief on the Merits

24 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,042 times   505 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Lucido v. Superior Court (People)

    51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,148 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of collateral estoppel include an identity of issues, the issue was actually litigated, and the issue was necessarily decided

  3. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 556 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

  4. Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig

    541 U.S. 232 (2004)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that Regulation Z was binding in interpreting an arbitrary provision of TILA

  5. Fukuda v. City of Angels

    20 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 483 times
    In Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, our Supreme Court explained that in the "weight of the evidence" test applicable under "independent judgment review," there is "a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings" which "provides the trial court with a starting point for review-but it is only a presumption, and may be overcome.

  6. Jackson v. County of Los Angeles

    60 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 365 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply when: " the same party has taken two positions; the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); the two positions are totally inconsistent; and the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake."

  7. Environmental Defense Ctr., Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A.

    344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 169 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the compelled disclosure of educational materials about the hazards of stormwater discharges and the proper disposal of waste “involve[d] no compelled recitation of a message and no affirmation of belief” because “[i]nforming the public about safe toxin disposal is non-ideological,” and nothing prohibited a regulated entity “from stating its own views about the proper means of managing toxic materials”

  8. State of California v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.3d 237 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 202 times
    Sustaining demurrer against State of California and state commission employees because none had authority to set aside the commission's permit denial

  9. Coleman v. Department of Personnel Admininistration

    52 Cal.3d 1102 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 122 times
    Explaining that there must be "some meaningful mechanism of procedural protections before the state, as an employer, may treat a permanent or tenured employee's unauthorized absence as a resignation under the AWOL statute"

  10. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    35 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 59 times
    Noting that "[u]nder the federal Clean Water Act, each state is free to enforce its own water quality laws so long as its effluent limitations are not `less stringent' than those set out in the Clean Water Act." The court also noted that in California, wastewater discharge requirements established by the regional boards are the equivalent of the NPDES permits required by federal law for enforcing effluent limitations and standards under the CWA.

  11. Section 1342 - National pollutant discharge elimination system

    33 U.S.C. § 1342   Cited 1,483 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges

  12. Section 1370 - State authority

    33 U.S.C. § 1370   Cited 162 times
    Stating that "nothing in this chapter shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof . . . to adopt or enforce any standard or limitation respecting discharges of pollutants" unless the standard is less stringent than an existing standard

  13. Section 122.26 - Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Section 123.25)

    40 C.F.R. § 122.26   Cited 188 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Requiring permits for discharges from oil and gas activities that contribute to a violation of a water quality standard