§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondents’ Answer Brief on the Merits

56 Cited authorities

  1. Arkansas v. Oklahoma

    503 U.S. 91 (1992)   Cited 600 times
    Holding that when using the substantial evidence standard, courts of appeals "should not supplant [an] agency's findings merely by identifying alternative findings that could be supported by substantial evidence"

  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. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 641 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  4. Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board

    426 U.S. 200 (1976)   Cited 324 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing NPDES system

  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. Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Murray, the California Supreme Court considered the preclusive effect of a federal agency’s investigative findings when the plaintiff had elected not to pursue a formal adjudicatory hearing or subsequent judicial review.

  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. Ward v. Taggart

    51 Cal.2d 736 (Cal. 1959)   Cited 390 times
    Holding that plaintiffs could recover profits unjustly realized by a real estate agent who misrepresented the purchase price of real estate, even though the plaintiffs did not pay more than the land was worth when they purchased it

  9. County of San Diego v. State of California

    15 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 121 times
    In County of San Diego v. State of California, supra, 15 Cal.4th 68, 85-90, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 134, 931 P.2d 312 (County of San Diego), the court considered the effect of violating statutory procedures enacted to determine through a "test claim" which forum was to apply section 6 of article XIII B of the California Constitution (section 6) to a matter.

  10. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 116 times
    Holding arbitrary and capricious EPA rule exempting various types of light industry and construction sites of less than five acres from permitting requirements

  11. Section 1251 - Congressional declaration of goals and policy

    33 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 3,552 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Designating the Administrator of the EPA to "administer this chapter"

  12. Section 1365 - Citizen suits

    33 U.S.C. § 1365   Cited 2,205 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Granting Administrator right to intervene in citizen suits

  13. Section 1311 - Effluent limitations

    33 U.S.C. § 1311   Cited 1,977 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1319 - Enforcement

    33 U.S.C. § 1319   Cited 1,159 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Providing judicial review to "[a]ny person against whom a civil penalty is assessed under this subsection or who commented on the proposed assessment of such penalty"

  16. 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

  17. Section 6

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIB § 6   Cited 53 times

    (a) Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide a subvention of funds for the following mandates: (1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected. (2) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition

  18. Section 9

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIB § 9   Cited 9 times

    "Appropriations subject to limitation" for each entity of government do not include: (a) Appropriations for debt service. (b) Appropriations required to comply with mandates of the courts or the federal government which, without discretion, require an expenditure for additional services or which unavoidably make the provision of existing services more costly. (c) Appropriations of any special district which existed on January 1, 1978, and which did not as of the 1977-78 fiscal year levy an ad valorem

  19. 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

  20. Section 122.1 - Purpose and scope

    40 C.F.R. § 122.1   Cited 43 times
    Explaining that 40 C.F.R. § 124 implements sections of the CWA

  21. Section 123.1 - Purpose and scope

    40 C.F.R. § 123.1   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This part specifies the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawing State programs and the requirements State programs must meet to be approved by the Administrator under sections 318, 402, and 405(a) (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-NPDES) of the CWA. This part also specifies the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawing State programs under section 405(f) (sludge management programs) of the CWA. The requirements that a State sewage

  22. Section 123.44 - EPA review of and objections to State permits

    40 C.F.R. § 123.44   Cited 33 times

    (a) (1) The Memorandum of Agreement shall provide a period of time (up to 90 days from receipt of proposed permits) to which the Regional Administrator may make general comments upon, objections to, or recommendations with respect to proposed permits. EPA reserves the right to take 90 days to supply specific grounds for objection, notwithstanding any shorter period specified in the Memorandum of Agreement, when a general objection is filed within the review period specified in the Memorandum of Agreement

  23. Section 124.6 - Draft permits

    40 C.F.R. § 124.6   Cited 24 times

    (a) (Applicable to State programs, see §§ 123.25 (NPDES), 145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404), and 271.14 (RCRA).) Once an application is complete, the Director shall tentatively decide whether to prepare a draft permit (except in the case of State section 404 permits for which no draft permit is required under § 233.39 ) or to deny the application. (b) If the Director tentatively decides to deny the permit application, he or she shall issue a notice of intent to deny. A notice of intent to deny the permit

  24. Section 124.8 - Fact sheet

    40 C.F.R. § 124.8   Cited 17 times
    Requiring the EPA or state authority to issue a fact sheet for every draft permit setting forth "the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit"

  25. Section 123.30 - Judicial review of approval or denial of permits

    40 C.F.R. § 123.30   Cited 12 times
    Requiring states to provide for judicial review of their permit decisions

  26. Section 124.3 - Application for a permit

    40 C.F.R. § 124.3   Cited 8 times

    (a)Applicable to State programs, see §§ 123.25 (NPDES), 145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404), and 271.14 (RCRA). (1) Any person who requires a permit under the RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD programs shall complete, sign, and submit to the Director an application for each permit required under §§ 270.1 (RCRA), 144.1 (UIC), 40 CFR 52.21 (PSD) , and 122.1 (NPDES). Applications are not required for RCRA permits by rule (§ 270.60 ), underground injections authorized by rules (§§ 144.21 through 144.26 ), NPDES general

  27. Section 122.5 - Effect of a permit

    40 C.F.R. § 122.5   Cited 8 times

    (a)Applicable to State programs, see § 123.25 . (1) Except for any toxic effluent standards and prohibitions imposed under section 307 of the CWA and "standards for sewage sludge use or disposal" under 405(d) of the CWA, compliance with a permit during its term constitutes compliance, for purposes of enforcement, with sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 318, 403, and 405 (a)-(b) of CWA. However, a permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated during its term for cause as set forth in §§ 122

  28. Section 2050 - Petition for Review by State Board

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23 § 2050   Cited 4 times

    (a) Any petition by an aggrieved person to the state board for review under Water Code Section 13320(a) of an action or failure to act by a regional board shall be submitted in writing and received by the state board within 30 days of any action or failure to act by a regional board. The petition shall contain the following: (1) Name, address, telephone number and email address (if available) of the petitioner. (2) The specific action or inaction of the regional board which the state board is requested

  29. Rule 8.532 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision

    Cal. R. 8.532   Cited 73 times

    (a)Filing the decision The clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly file all opinions and orders issued by the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018.) (b) Finality of decision (1) Except as provided in (2), a Supreme Court decision is final 30 days after filing unless: (A) The court orders a shorter period; or (B) Before the 30-day period or any extension