§Why CasetextPricing

SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Appellant, City of San Buenaventura, Reply Brief on the Merits

41 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  2. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 585 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  3. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 403 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

  4. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist.

    29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 263 times
    In Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 62 P.3d 54], it held that a provision in that code must be interpreted "`"with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.

  5. Profes'l Engineers v. Kempton

    40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 164 times
    In Kempton we concluded that both Government Code sections 14101 and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35. (Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1037-1041.)

  6. Voices of Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    52 Cal.4th 499 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 111 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Wetlands, the trial court concluded that the agency's decision was "not sufficiently supported by the original administrative record.

  7. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 120 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  8. California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Board

    51 Cal.4th 421 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 71 times
    In Farm Bureau, we considered and rejected a facial challenge to a statutory user fee on certain water rights holders for purposes of supporting the State Water Resources Control Board's Water Rights Division.

  9. Bighorn-Desert v. Verjil

    39 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that rates based on usage were not subject to Proposition 218

  10. Hotel Employees Restaurant Emps. Int. Un. v. Davis

    21 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that the invalid portions of a law were not volitionally separable despite the presence of a severability clause

  11. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. III § 3   Cited 403 times
    Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches

  12. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIC § 1   Cited 63 times
    Exempting from the definition of tax " charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof"

  13. Section 6

    Cal. Const. art. XIIID § 6   Cited 40 times

    (a)Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 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

  15. 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