§Why CasetextPricing

LEIDER v. LEWIS

Appellants, John Lewis and City of Los Angeles, Reply Brief on the Merits

24 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Overstreet

    42 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 287 times
    Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"

  2. Morohoshi v. Pacific Home

    34 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 161 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although regional centers possessed many statutory and non-delegable duties to coordinate, monitor, implement and secure (though not provide) treatment services for the developmentally disabled by contracting with care facilities, the regional center's “monitoring responsibilities” were limited and did not require “the hour-by-hour monitoring that would have been required to prevent [the decedent's] tragic death.” The court noted that regional centers “could not possibly provide [such] continuous monitoring” and that the state legislature did not contemplate such a duty.

  3. Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia

    103 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 146 times
    Finding anti-SLAPP motion timely where it was filed within 60 days of service of the third amended complaint

  4. Vesely v. Sager

    5 Cal.3d 153 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 283 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Abrogating common law rule and finding defendant could be liable based upon violation of criminal statute prohibiting vendors from selling alcohol to intoxicated person

  5. People v. Shuey

    13 Cal.3d 835 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 209 times
    In People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 83, 533 P.2d 211] (Shuey II), police officers illegally entered the defendants' home and arrested them.

  6. Estate of Horman

    5 Cal.3d 62 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 126 times

    Docket No. L.A. 29832. June 10, 1971. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 932697, James F. Judge, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas C. Lynch and Evelle J. Younger, Attorneys General, Elizabeth Miller and Ariel C. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Objector and Appellant. Slaff, Mosk Rudman, Edward Mosk and Leon Goldin for Claimants and Respondents. OPINION THE COURT. In this proceeding to determine heirship, the State of California appeals from a decree ordering that certain nonresident aliens

  7. Humane Society of United States v. State Bd. of Equalization

    152 Cal.App.4th 349 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. A114590. June 21, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 449058, Ronald Evans Quidachay, Judge. Peter A. Brandt, Carter Dillard, Jonathan R. Lovvorn; Evans Page, Corey A. Evans and Geneva Page for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Randall P. Borcherding and Paul D. Gifford, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION HAERLE, Acting P.J. — I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

  8. Cole v. Rush

    45 Cal.2d 345 (Cal. 1955)   Cited 150 times
    Noting the Legislature's failure to change the law despite making numerous other statutory changes "is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended"

  9. Sundance v. Municipal Court

    42 Cal.3d 1101 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 49 times
    Explaining that “waste” includes public spending that is “completely unnecessary, or useless, or provides no public benefit” without being fraudulent or collusive

  10. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. California Exposition & State Fairs

    239 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times
    In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. California Exposition & State Fairs, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at pages 1297, 1301, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 89, the court held that administrative remedies were the sole avenue for enforcement of the animal abuse proscriptions in Penal Code sections 597 and 597t.

  11. Section 2131 - Congressional statement of policy

    7 U.S.C. § 2131   Cited 195 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that one purpose of the AWA is "to assure the humane treatment of animals"

  12. Section 3.128 - Space requirements

    9 C.F.R. § 3.128   Cited 6 times

    Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns. 9 C.F.R. § 3.128

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,189 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