48 Cited authorities

  1. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 682 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that city could not require development permit applicant to grant a public pathway easement where there was no reasonable relationship between the proposed development and the condition imposed
  2. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 824 times   48 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
  3. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,276 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability
  4. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

    487 U.S. 450 (1988)   Cited 317 times
    Finding no constitutional violation in charging for school bus service, where the Constitution does not require that such bus service be provided at all
  5. Euclid v. Ambler Co.

    272 U.S. 365 (1926)   Cited 2,310 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"
  6. Hensler v. City of Glendale

    8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 230 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Suggesting that, though the California constitution protects a somewhat broader range of property than the Fifth Amendment, the necessity of obtaining a final decision from the regulatory entity applies with equal force to claims under state law
  7. Bickel v. City of Piedmont

    16 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 194 times
    In Bickel, the California Supreme Court held that an applicant could waive its right to deemed approval by cooperating with a lead agency's lengthy processing of its application.Id. at 433–34.
  8. Nectow v. Cambridge

    277 U.S. 183 (1928)   Cited 455 times
    Holding that a court should not interfere with local zoning decisions unless the locality's action "has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense"
  9. Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement

    171 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 106 times
    Finding that it was not necessary for the Plaintiffs to allege the detailed minutiae of how, when, and where certain non-disclosures or concealment took place and that the details of the concealment were "properly the subject of discovery, not demurrer."
  10. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles

    4 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sherwin-Williams, this court identified three types of conflict that cause preemption: "`A conflict exists if the local legislation" `duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.
  11. Section 13136 - Scope of Subchapter

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 13136

    This Subchapter governs procedures for processing applications for permits or waivers to perform work to resolve problems resulting from a situation falling within the definition of "emergency" in Section 13009 and pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Sections 30611 and 30624, for which the Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 30519(b). Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 13136 Note: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 30611 and 30624, Public

  12. Section 13252 - Repair and Maintenance of Activities Requiring a Permit

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 13252

    (a) For purposes of Public Resources Code Section 30610(d), the following extraordinary methods of repair and maintenance shall require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of substantial adverse environmental impact: (1) Any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline work that involves: (A) Repair or maintenance involving substantial alteration of the foundation of the protective work

  13. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,726 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 229 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