§Why CasetextPricing

M. (J.) v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Appellant’s Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,904 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  2. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist.

    42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 661 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity"

  3. City of Stockton v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 645 times
    Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

  4. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 993 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

  5. McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist.

    45 Cal.4th 88 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 465 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's use of internal grievance procedure with community college did not preclude finding of equitable tolling

  6. 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"

  7. City of San Jose v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 706 times
    Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

  8. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  9. Smith v. Superior Court

    39 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 239 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a broad construction of the term "discharge" in § 201 made sense "in light of the important public policy at stake"

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

    29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 261 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.

  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 8.504 - 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)