§Why CasetextPricing

SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, The People, Reply Brief on the Merits

31 Cited authorities

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

    505 U.S. 88 (1992)   Cited 891 times   10 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. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,167 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  3. McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.

    142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 706 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

  4. 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”

  5. Silvas v. E*Trade Mortgage Corp.

    514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 400 times
    Holding that claims for unfair advertising and unfair competition brought pursuant to California's consumer protection statute were preempted by § 560.2(b)

  6. Elsner v. Uveges

    34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 275 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding enrolled bill reports prepared after a bill's passage instructive on matters of legislative intent

  7. Farm Raised Salmon Cases

    42 Cal.4th 1077 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 212 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Sherman Law violations may form the basis of a UCL claim

  8. Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc.

    152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 146 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

  9. People v. Toomey

    157 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 151 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a showing of threatened future harm or continuing violation is required" before a court can impose an injunction under California's Business and Professions Code

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

    57 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 61 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

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

    29 U.S.C. § 651   Cited 1,488 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Noting the OSH Act arose from concern surrounding "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations"

  12. Section 653 - Geographic applicability; judicial enforcement; applicability to existing standards; report to Congress on duplication and coordination of Federal laws; workmen's compensation law or common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees unaffected

    29 U.S.C. § 653   Cited 360 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Establishing that nothing in the OSHA statute "shall be construed to ... enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties or liabilities of employers and employees under any law ..."

  13. Section 667 - State jurisdiction and plans

    29 U.S.C. § 667   Cited 181 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing for transfer of jurisdiction

  14. Section 1910.1200 - Hazard communication

    29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200   Cited 188 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to develop written programs describing their compliance and make them available to the agency on request

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,182 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or