§Why CasetextPricing

NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

28 Cited authorities

  1. Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

    427 U.S. 246 (1976)   Cited 172 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

  2. Superior Court v. County of Mendocino

    13 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 111 times
    Upholding facial validity of a statutory designation of one or more unpaid furlough days on which trial courts shall not be in session, because the statute would not necessarily defeat or materially impair a court's fulfillment of its constitutional duties

  3. Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California

    25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses

    S078828 Filed April 5, 2001 Appeal from the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BS041545, Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. Ct.App. 2/1, Review Granted, 70 Cal.App.4th 1525, Rehearing Granted. Law Offices of William D. Ross, William D. Ross and Carol B. Sherman for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel (Los Angeles) and Stephen R. Morris, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants

  4. 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

    8 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 97 times
    Denying notice of flyers "purportedly" distributed to voters during Proposition 103 campaign, because party failed to persuade court that contents may be noticed

  5. Galland v. City of Clovis

    24 Cal.4th 1003 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 75 times
    Determining prices that will provide a fair return is product of expert judgment

  6. In re Jenkins

    50 Cal.4th 1167 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 53 times
    Recognizing Legislature's delegation of authority to CDCR in Penal Code section 5068 to make rules and regulations governing prisoner classification and discipline

  7. Fuentes v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    16 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 149 times
    In Fuentes v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673, 547 P.2d 449] (Fuentes), the court had previously held that "formula A" was the correct method for calculating an award when permanent disability could be partially attributed to nonindustrial causes.

  8. Moore v. California State Bd. of Accountancy

    2 Cal.4th 999 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 86 times
    Holding unlicensed accountants cannot hold themselves out to the public as "accountants"

  9. 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

  10. Rossi v. Brown

    9 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that initiative provisions do not except measures imposing a tax from the initiative power

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. IV § 1   Cited 176 times
    Reserving to the people of California “the powers of initiative and referendum”

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 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