§Why CasetextPricing

NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Amicus Curiae Brief of Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney

14 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,621 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

  2. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.

    531 U.S. 457 (2001)   Cited 1,088 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Chevron deference is due only to a " reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency"

  3. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 547 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  4. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.

    449 U.S. 456 (1981)   Cited 842 times
    Holding that limitation can be rational even if it only partially ameliorates perceived evil

  5. Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

    427 U.S. 246 (1976)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that EPA may not consider claims of economic infeasibility in evaluating a state requirement that primary ambient air quality standards be met by a certain deadline

  6. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

    285 U.S. 262 (1932)   Cited 397 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Striking down a state law prohibiting the sale of ice without a permit as unreasonable because the sale of ice was not a "public business" that could be so regulated

  7. American Coatings Association, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality District

    54 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Contrasting standard applied in ordinary mandamus proceedings under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, and observing that traditional substantial evidence standard applies to judicial review of agency findings in an administrative mandamus proceeding under Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5

  8. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Dole

    802 F.2d 474 (D.C. Cir. 1986)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that parties' challenge to portion of Final Rule that provided for recision of the rule's requirement that automobiles contain passive restraints if by [a designated date], two-thirds of the United States' population was covered by mandatory seatbelt usage laws meeting specified criteria, was not ripe for judicial review. "On the record before us, it appears singularly unlikely that the passive restraint standard will be rescinded by 1989. Failure to rescind the standard at that time would, of course, render the assault on the provision moot. Since it appears unlikely that the `trap door' will ever be opened, a decision on this issue may very well prove unnecessary."

  9. Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles

    30 Cal.3d 70 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 69 times
    In Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70, we explained the fallacy in this reasoning in addressing a somewhat related contention.

  10. Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles

    57 Cal.2d 515 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 83 times

    Docket No. L.A. 26566. April 12, 1962. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip H. Richards, Judge. Affirmed. Donald J. Dunne for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney, Bourke Jones and Claude E. Hilker, Assistant City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent. Peter T. Rice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. DOOLING, J. This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action seeking declaratory relief and to enjoin defendant

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 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