§Why CasetextPricing

SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Appellants, United Water Conservation District and Board of Directors of United Water Conservation District, Answer to Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. Bixby v. Pierno

    4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 624 times
    In Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 (Bixby), the leading modern case discussing and explaining the independent judgment test, we quoted with approval Drummey's statement that in applying "`independent judgment,'" a trial court must accord a "`strong presumption of... correctness'" to administrative findings, and that the "burden rests" upon the complaining party to show that the administrative "`decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.'"

  3. 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and 14130 were derived from California Constitution, article VII restrictions on private contracting and were impliedly repealed by Proposition 35.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.)

  4. 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

  5. McWilliams v. City of Long Beach

    56 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 71 times
    In Long, for example, the court found that the defendant had solicited business in California (the forum state) not only because he called the plaintiff in California and entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff would recruit players for the defendant but also because the defendant entered into that agreement in order to develop a “presence” in California.

  6. In re Marriage of Cornejo

    13 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 112 times

    Docket No. S047177. May 30, 1996. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 741010, Lee D. Baxter, Judge. COUNSEL Arthur Brunwasser for Appellant. Shearer, Lanctot Noelke and Lawrence R. Lanctot for Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. In In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 493, 629 P.2d 1] (hereafter sometimes Gillmore), we held that retirement benefits that an employee spouse earns during a marriage to a nonemployee spouse are community property

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    15 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th 866, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350, this court addressed the distinction between taxes, which require two-thirds approval, and regulatory fees, which do not.

  10. Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    24 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 719, 14 P.3d 930 (Apartment Association), our Supreme Court considered whether an inspection fee imposed on owners of residential rental properties violated article XIII D. The fee, measured at $12 per unit per year, was imposed by the City of Los Angeles on " ‘[o]wners of all buildings subject to inspection,’ " which in turn included " ‘all residential rental properties with two or more dwelling units on the same lot’ " with certain exceptions.

  11. 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

  12. Rule 8.268 - Rehearing

    Cal. R. 8.268   Cited 77 times

    (a)Power to order rehearing (1) On petition of a party or on its own motion, a reviewing court may order rehearing of any decision that is not final in that court on filing. (2) An order for rehearing must be filed before the decision is final. If the clerk's office is closed on the date of finality, the court may file the order on the next day the clerk's office is open. (b)Petition and answer (1) A party may serve and file a petition for rehearing within 15 days after: (A) The filing of the decision;

  13. 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)