Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com.
25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) Cited 616 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding unqualified affirmance ordinarily sustains judgment and ends litigation; therefore, trial court did not have jurisdiction to reopen case once supreme court's decision became final
Teal v. Superior Court
60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) Cited 347 timesHolding resentencing provision of Three Strikes Law creates substantial right affecting personal liberty interest
In re Aaron R.
130 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 165 timesRuling on section 388 petition is separately appealable order
Powers v. City of Richmond
10 Cal.4th 85 (Cal. 1995) Cited 151 timesDiscussing state constitutional right of review
California Ass'n of Psychology Providers v. Rank
51 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) Cited 154 timesIn CaliforniaAssn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 9, we said that "our minute orders... cannot serve as precedent to guide future decisions."
Muller v. Fresno Community Hosp
172 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 88 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Muller v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 887, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 617, a panel of the Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division Eight, concluded this element was effectively abandoned by our Supreme Court, sub silentio, in three cases: Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 Cal.2d 213, 288 P.2d 267, Southern Pacific Co. v. Oppenheimer (1960) 54 Cal.2d 784, 8 Cal.Rptr. 657, 356 P.2d 441, and Takehara v. H.C. Muddox Co. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 168, 104 Cal.Rptr. 345, 501 P.2d 913.
People v. Karriker
149 Cal.App.4th 763 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 64 timesHolding process leading to conservatorship not intended as "catch-all" for all incompetent defendants
Leone v. Medical Board
22 Cal.4th 660 (Cal. 2000) Cited 79 timesIn Leone, we held that "an appellate court must judge [a writ] petition on its procedural and substantive merits" if the "petition was the only authorized mode of appellate review."
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center
45 Cal.4th 1259 (Cal. 2009) Cited 53 timesIn Mileikowsky, a peer review committee and the medical executive committee of the hospital had recommended that Dr. Mileikowsky's application for renewal of his staff privileges be denied.
Los Angeles International Charter High School v. Los Angeles Unified School District
209 Cal.App.4th 1348 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 33 times 1 Legal AnalysesInvolving an appeal from an order discharging a writ; appellate court "will uphold the [District's facilities] decision unless it is devoid of evidentiary support"
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
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)