§Why CasetextPricing

FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER v. NORTH COAST RAILROAD AUTHORITY (NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY)

Appellants, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and Friends of Eel River, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

57 Cited authorities

  1. Gregory v. Ashcroft

    501 U.S. 452 (1991)   Cited 987 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding Missouri's judicial age limitation of 70 rationally related to such legitimate purposes as avoiding laborious testing of older judges' physical and mental acuity, promoting orderly attrition of judges, and recognizing that judges' remoteness from public view makes determination of competency, and removal from office, more difficult than for other office-holders

  2. Printz v. United States

    521 U.S. 898 (1997)   Cited 760 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a statute obligating state law enforcement officers to implement a federal gun-control law

  3. Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey

    569 U.S. 251 (2013)   Cited 202 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the breadth of the words ‘related to’ does not mean the sky is the limit" in rejecting a defendant's preemption argument under a statute that "[b]orrow from the ADA's preemption clause"

  4. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,184 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  5. Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc.

    507 U.S. 218 (1993)   Cited 338 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Boston's requiring a no-strike provision in subcontractor agreements was permissible market participation because the city was "attempting to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible" and because "analogous private conduct would be permitted"

  6. City of Columbus v. Ours Garage Wreckerservice, Inc.

    536 U.S. 424 (2002)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that presumptions from negative implication "grow weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection."

  7. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp

    467 U.S. 691 (1984)   Cited 357 times
    Holding ban pre-empted by Federal Communications Commission regulations

  8. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. Gould Inc.

    475 U.S. 282 (1986)   Cited 260 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state's use of its spending power to sanction certain conduct unrelated to the state contract at issue was regulatory

  9. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.

    426 U.S. 794 (1976)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that state acting as a buyer of scrap metal is a market participant

  10. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 620 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects

  11. Section 10101 - Rail transportation policy

    49 U.S.C. § 10101   Cited 785 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Articulating objective of "promot[ing] a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues"

  12. Section 6250 - Legislative intent

    Cal. Gov. Code § 6250   Cited 653 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In section 6250, the Legislature declared it was “ ‘mindful of the right of individuals to privacy,’ ” and the dual concern for privacy and disclosure appears in numerous provisions throughout the CPRA.

  13. Section 21080 - Zoning ordinances, zoning variances, conditional use permits and tentative subdivision maps applied to discretionary projects; exemptions

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21080   Cited 396 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Listing exemptions

  14. Section 14556.40 - Projects eligible for grants

    Cal. Gov. Code § 14556.40   Cited 4 times

    (a) The following projects are eligible for grants from the fund for the purposes and amounts specified: (1) BART to San Jose; extend BART from Fremont to Downtown San Jose in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Seven hundred twenty-five million dollars ($725,000,000). The lead applicant is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. (2) Fremont-South Bay Commuter Rail; acquire rail line and start commuter rail service between Fremont and San Jose in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Thirty-five

  15. Section 185033 - Business plan

    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 185033   Cited 3 times

    (a) The authority shall prepare, publish, adopt, and submit to the Legislature, not later than May 1, 2014, and every two years thereafter, a business plan. At least 60 days prior to the publication of the plan, the authority shall publish a draft business plan for public review and comment. The draft plan shall also be submitted to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing, the Assembly Committee on Transportation, the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Assembly Committee

  16. Section 185000 - Title of act

    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 185000   Cited 2 times

    This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the California High-Speed Rail Act. Ca. Pub. Util. Code § 185000 Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 796, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1997.

  17. Section 185020 - Created; members

    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 185020   Cited 2 times

    (a) There is in the Transportation Agency a High-Speed Rail Authority. (b) (1) The authority is composed of 11 members as follows: (A) Five members appointed by the Governor. (B) Two members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. (C) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. (D) One Member of the Senate appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and one Member of the Assembly appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly shall be ex officio members without vote and shall participate in

  18. Section 14556.13 - Requirements for project applications

    Cal. Gov. Code § 14556.13

    (a) The project applications shall define the project purpose, intended scope, proposed cost, intended funding sources, and schedule for project completion. Each application shall also specify the paragraph number of subdivision (a) of Section 14556.40 that authorizes the project, and identify the agency responsible for carrying out the work, to which the commission will allocate funds. (b) Except as authorized under subdivision (c), the project application shall specify the scope of work, the cost

  19. Section 15378 - Project

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15378   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "project" as "the whole of an action"