§Why CasetextPricing

SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS v. S.C.

Petitioners’ Answer to Petition for Review

27 Cited authorities

  1. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n

    505 U.S. 88 (1992)   Cited 913 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

  2. International Paper Co. v. Ouellette

    479 U.S. 481 (1987)   Cited 463 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Clean Water Act does not preclude aggrieved individuals from bringing a "nuisance claim pursuant to the law of the source State"

  3. Olszewski v. Scripps Health

    30 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state statutes which permitted Medicaid providers to place liens and recover on claims against third parties who caused the Medicaid covered injuries were preempted to the extent the statutes permitted recovery beyond the Medicaid payment

  4. People ex rel. Harris v. PAC Anchor Transportation, Inc.

    59 Cal.4th 772 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 175 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a UCL claim seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution on the basis that defendants misclassified drivers and failed to take statutorily mandated actions including provision of workers compensation was not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994

  5. Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc.

    152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if deposit copies of a work accompanying an application for registration are not accurate copies of the work for which registration is sought, then the registration is invalid

  6. Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

    87 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 111 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims representatives are not exempt from the overtime pay provisions of California Wage Order No. 4

  7. Rose v. Bank of America, N.A.

    57 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 62 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even the abolition of a private right of action in an underlying statute "does not amount to a bar against UCL claims" premised on that statute

  8. Industrial Truck Association, Inc. v. Henry

    125 F.3d 1305 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 64 times
    Explaining that court will find federal conflict preemption when "it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements"

  9. In re White

    121 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 41 times
    Considering $25,000 “a reasonable and responsible monetary sanction to compensate this court in part for the cost of processing, reviewing, and deciding” frivolously filed writ petitions

  10. Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court

    95 Cal.App.4th 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that state statutory claims challenging preclosing interest charges on home loans are preempted by the Home Owner's Loan Act and the act's implementing regulations

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,405 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,760 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

  13. Section 651 - Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy

    29 U.S.C. § 651   Cited 1,500 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Noting the OSH Act arose from concern surrounding "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations"

  14. Section 667 - State jurisdiction and plans

    29 U.S.C. § 667   Cited 182 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing for transfer of jurisdiction

  15. Section 6428 - Civil penalty for violation of standard order or special order determined to be serious violation

    Cal. Lab. Code § 6428   Cited 4 times

    Any employer who violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, if that violation is a serious violation, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation. Employers who do not have an operative injury prevention program shall receive no adjustment for good faith of the employer or history of previous violations as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (c)

  16. Section 6429 - Willfully or repeatedly violating standard, order or special order

    Cal. Lab. Code § 6429   Cited 2 times

    (a) (1) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, or any employer who commits an enterprise-wide violation as specified in Section 6317, may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than one hundred twenty-four thousand seven hundred nine dollars ($124,709) for each violation, but in no case less than eight thousand nine hundred eight dollars ($8,908) for each willful violation

  17. Section 1955.3 - General policy

    29 C.F.R. § 1955.3   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The following circumstances shall be cause for initiation of proceedings under this part for withdrawal of approval of a State plan, or any portion thereof. (1) Whenever the Assistant Secretary determines that under § 1902.2(b) of this chapter a State has not substantially completed the developmental steps of its plan at the end of three years from the date of commencement of operations, a withdrawal proceeding shall be instituted. Examples of a lack of substantial completion of developmental

  18. Rule 8.200 - [Effective 1/1/2025] Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.200   Cited 727 times

    (a)Parties' briefs (1) Each appellant must serve and file an appellant's opening brief. (2) Each respondent must serve and file a respondent's brief. (3) Each appellant may serve and file a reply brief. (4) No other brief may be filed except with the permission of the presiding justice, unless it qualifies under (b) or (c)(7). (5) Instead of filing a brief, or as part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal. (Subd (a) amended

  19. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 344 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