Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.
508 U.S. 307 (1993) Cited 2,228 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"
Nebbia v. New York
291 U.S. 502 (1934) Cited 1,467 timesHolding that due process is not violated if the challenged law has "a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose" and is "neither arbitrary nor discriminatory"
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.
439 U.S. 96 (1978) Cited 223 timesRecognizing State interest in regulating dealer-manufacturer relationship
H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 221 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian
48 Cal.3d 805 (Cal. 1989) Cited 249 timesHolding that a statute that passed the federal test did not violate either the federal or state Constitutions
Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co.
335 U.S. 525 (1949) Cited 208 timesRejecting Adair and Coppage and upholding a state's right similarly to regulate employer hiring
Kasler v. Lockyer
23 Cal.4th 472 (Cal. 2000) Cited 143 timesIn Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472, 488, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 2 P.3d 581 (2000), the California Supreme Court detailed the legislative history of AWCA and said, "[t]he Legislature was, in short, confronted with two conflicting societal interests, both of which it recognized as legitimate – the interest of all citizens in being protected against the use of semiautomatic weapons by criminals, and the interest of some citizens in using semiautomatic weapons for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities."
Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley
17 Cal.3d 129 (Cal. 1976) Cited 236 timesHolding that local law eliminating "particular grounds for eviction [was] a limitation upon the landlord's property rights under the police power" that provided a "substantive ground of defense in unlawful detainer proceedings" but did not conflict with the state's statutory unlawful-detainer laws
Warden v. State Bar
21 Cal.4th 628 (Cal. 1999) Cited 114 times 1 Legal AnalysesRejecting argument that state bar MCLE exemptions violated equal protection, just because classifications might be imperfect
Coleman v. Department of Personnel Admininistration
52 Cal.3d 1102 (Cal. 1991) Cited 122 timesExplaining that there must be "some meaningful mechanism of procedural protections before the state, as an employer, may treat a permanent or tenured employee's unauthorized absence as a resignation under the AWOL statute"
Rule 8.512 - Ordering review
Cal. R. 8.512 Cited 3,575 times(a) Transmittal of record On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal if the record was transmitted in paper form. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b)Determination
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