§Why CasetextPricing

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Appellant’s Petition for Review

96 Cited authorities

  1. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,202 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  3. Lungren v. Deukmejian

    45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 828 times
    Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"

  4. People v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty. (Zamudio)

    23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 521 times
    Recognizing a new theory may be presented for the first time on appeal if "it raised only a question of law and can be decided based on undisputed facts"

  5. In re Greg F.

    55 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 299 times
    Finding court was within discretion to dismiss later 602 petition, after admissions entered, in order to permit more serious commitment based on later filed probation violation alleging same acts

  6. Reyes v. Kosha

    65 Cal.App.4th 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 444 times
    In Reyes, the Court found a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant operated and maintained a labor camp when the defendant "strictly controlled who lived in the camp," "provided workers with portable toilets and organized the workers to run a waterline to the camp," "provided materials for them to install faucets and showers in the camp," and "provided a mailbox so they could receive mail at the farm."

  7. Delaney v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 384 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the use of "all" in a constitutional provision precluded any exceptions

  8. LI v. Yellow Cab Co.

    13 Cal.3d 804 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 609 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the “ ‘all-or-nothing’ ” common law doctrine of contributory negligence is superseded by a comparative negligence system that assigns liability for damage in direct proportion to the fault of each party

  9. Burden v. Snowden

    2 Cal.4th 556 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 346 times

    Docket No. S021885. April 30, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 590772, William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Filarsky Watt, Steve A. Filarsky, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Amy D. Hogue and Kevin M. Fong for Defendants and Appellants. Mayer Reeves, Thomas M. Reeves, Irving Berger, Martin J. Mayer, Whitmore, Johnson Bolanos, Richard S. Whitmore, Craig W. Patenaude and Helene L. Leichter as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. John K. York

  10. People v. Massie

    19 Cal.4th 550 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 278 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Massie, 967 P.2d 29 (1998), the Supreme Court of California held that double jeopardy did not attach where a guilty plea was invalidated.

  11. Section 8

    Cal. Const. art. IV § 8   Cited 590 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing effective dates of statutes

  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. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIA § 3   Cited 24 times

    (a) Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed. (b) As used in this section, "tax" means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, except the following: (1) A charge imposed for a specific

  15. Section 647.4 - Recording of Meetings

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23 § 647.4   Cited 1 times

    (a) State and Regional Board public meetings shall be recorded by stenographic reporter or electronic recording or both. Such recordings shall be available for public review and copying at the appropriate State or Regional Board office. (b) The cost of copying the record of any meeting shall be borne by the requester. Staffing needs may require that copying be performed at another location by persons other than the staff of the Board. (c) The recordings shall be retained for the period of time required