§Why CasetextPricing

PROPERTY RESERVE v. S.C. (DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES)

Real Party in Interest, Department of Water Resources, Petition for Review

53 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank

    473 U.S. 172 (1985)   Cited 2,709 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause [of the United States Constitution] until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation”

  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

    505 U.S. 1003 (1992)   Cited 1,839 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Williamson County's "final decision" prong is prudential

  3. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City

    438 U.S. 104 (1978)   Cited 2,578 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding prohibition on construction of fifty-five-story office tower over New York's Grand Central Terminal is not a regulatory taking

  4. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,199 times
    Holding that trial courts may dismiss prior convictions alleged under the Three Strikes Law

  5. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    535 U.S. 302 (2002)   Cited 738 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding it “inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a ‘regulatory taking,’ and vice versa”

  6. First Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County

    482 U.S. 304 (1987)   Cited 966 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fifth Amendment doesn't just create a right but "necessarily implicates the constitutional obligation to pay just compensation" in the event of a taking and that the "self-executing character of the constitutional provision" bestows a landowner with a cause of action

  7. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

    458 U.S. 419 (1982)   Cited 1,113 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking

  8. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  9. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis

    480 U.S. 470 (1987)   Cited 824 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in a facial challenge, the issue is whether the "mere enactment of the [regulation] constitutes a taking"

  10. State v. Superior Court

    32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,351 times
    Holding that "failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action"

  11. Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.278   Cited 4,777 times

    (a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 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

  13. Rule 8.493 - Costs

    Cal. R. 8.493   Cited 322 times

    (a)Award of costs (1) Except in a criminal or juvenile or other proceeding in which a party is entitled to court-appointed counsel: (A) Unless otherwise ordered by the court under (B), the prevailing party in an original proceeding is entitled to costs if the court resolves the proceeding by written opinion after issuing an alternative writ, an order to show cause, or a peremptory writ in the first instance. (B) In the interests of justice, the court may also award or deny costs as it deems proper

  14. Rule 3.1112 - Motions and other pleadings

    Cal. R. 3.1112   Cited 37 times

    (a) Motions required papers Unless otherwise provided by the rules in this division, the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) The motion itself; and (3) A memorandum in support of the motion or demurrer. (b) Other papers Other papers may be filed in support of a motion, including declarations, exhibits, appendices, and other documents or pleadings. (c) Form of motion papers The papers filed under (a) and (b) may either

  15. Rule 3.1103 - Definitions and construction

    Cal. R. 3.1103   Cited 19 times

    (a) Law and motion defined "Law and motion" includes any proceedings: (1) On application before trial for an order, except for causes arising under the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Probate Code, the Family Code, or Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6, 527.7, 527.8, and 527.85; or (2) On application for an order regarding the enforcement of judgment, attachment of property, appointment of a receiver, obtaining or setting aside a judgment by default, writs of review, mandate and prohibition