112 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,555 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Gonzales v. Oregon
546 U.S. 243 (2006) Cited 558 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that statute did not delegate authority to Attorney General to make medical judgments
Welch v. Metropolitan Life
480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 937 times
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization
19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) Cited 640 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”
Serrano v. Priest
20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) Cited 938 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist.
39 Cal.App.4th 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 474 times
In Landry, the court held a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case where there was no litigation activity by the plaintiffs for a period of 18-and-one-half months.
Wood v. Georgia
370 U.S. 375 (1962) Cited 394 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that "[C]ongress has the power to circumscribe the political activities of federal employees in the career public service" does not apply to elected officials
Connerly v. State Personnel Board
37 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2006) Cited 302 times 1 Legal Analyses
Determining whether the California Business Council can be assessed attorney fees under section 1021.5 as an " ‘opposing part[y]’ within the meaning of that statute"
Bond v. Floyd
385 U.S. 116 (1966) Cited 262 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court had jurisdiction to review whether Georgia House of Representatives deprived one of its members of his constitutional rights when it refused to seat him on account of statements he had made criticizing the conduct of the war in Vietnam
Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty
18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) Cited 317 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases in which, as here, the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action."
Section 152 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 152 Cited 3,188 times 27 Legal Analyses
Defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment”
Section 803 - Action brought by Attorney General
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 803 Cited 125 times
In section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legislature has enjoined upon the attorney-general the duty of bringing actions for the forfeiture of corporate franchises whenever he has reason to believe that they are unlawfully held or exercised.
Section 12
Cal. Const. art. VI § 12 Cited 42 times
(a) The Supreme Court may, before decision, transfer to itself a cause in a court of appeal. It may, before decision, transfer a cause from itself to a court of appeal or from one court of appeal or division to another. The court to which a cause is transferred has jurisdiction. (b) The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal in any cause. (c) The Judicial Council shall provide, by rules of court, for the time and procedure for transfer and for review, including, among other things
Section 32603 - Employer Unfair Practices Under MMBA
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32603 Cited 9 times
It shall be an unfair practice for a public agency to do any of the following: (a) Interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by Government Code section 3502 or by any local rule adopted pursuant to Government Code section 3507. (b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by Government Code section 3503, 3504.5, 3505.1, 3505.3, 3507.1, 3508(d) or 3508.5 or by any local rule adopted pursuant
Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal
Cal. R. 8.278 Cited 4,775 times
(a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice
Rule 8.528 - Disposition
Cal. R. 8.528 Cited 2,994 times
(a)Normal disposition After review, the Supreme Court normally will affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but may order another disposition. (b) Dismissal of review (1) The Supreme Court may dismiss review. The clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly send an order dismissing review to all parties and the Court of Appeal. (2) When the Court of Appeal receives an order dismissing review, the decision of that court is final and its clerk/executive officer
Rule 8.264 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision
Cal. R. 8.264 Cited 509 times
(a)Filing the decision (1) The clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly file all opinions and orders of the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (2) A decision by opinion must identify the participating justices, including the author of the majority opinion and of any concurring or dissenting opinion, or the justices participating in a "by the court" opinion. (Subd (a) amended effective January
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
Rule 3.1702 - Claiming attorney's fees
Cal. R. 3.1702 Cited 326 times
(a) Application Except as otherwise provided by statute, this rule applies in civil cases to claims for statutory attorney's fees and claims for attorney's fees provided for in a contract. Subdivisions (b) and (c) apply when the court determines entitlement to the fees, the amount of the fees, or both, whether the court makes that determination because the statute or contract refers to "reasonable" fees, because it requires a determination of the prevailing party, or for other reasons. (b) Attorney's
Rule 8.25 - Service, filing, and filing fees
Cal. R. 8.25 Cited 58 times
(a)Service (1) Before filing any document, a party must serve one copy of the document on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each unrepresented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute or rule. (2) The party must attach to the document presented for filing a proof of service showing service on each person or entity required to be served under (1), or, if using an electronic filing service provider's automatic electronic document service, the party may
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)
Rule 8.77 - Actions by court on receipt of electronically submitted document; date and time of filing
Cal. R. 8.77 Cited 2 times
(a) Confirmation of receipt and filing of document (1)Confirmation of receipt When the court receives an electronically submitted document, the court must arrange to promptly send the electronic filer confirmation of the court's receipt of the document, indicating the date and time of receipt by the court. (2)Filing If the electronically submitted document received by the court complies with filing requirements, the document is deemed filed on the date and time it was received by the court as stated
Rule 8.498 - Renumbered effective April 25, 2019
Cal. R. 8.498 Cited 2 times
Cal. R. Ct. 8.498 Rule 8.498 renumbered as rule 8.728.
Rule 8.499 - Renumbered effective April 25, 2019
Cal. R. 8.499 Cited 1 times
Cal. R. Ct. 8.499 Rule 8.499 renumbered as rule 8.730.

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

112 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that statute did not delegate authority to Attorney General to make medical judgments

Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself

In Landry, the court held a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case where there was no litigation activity by the plaintiffs for a period of 18-and-one-half months.

Holding that the rule that "[C]ongress has the power to circumscribe the political activities of federal employees in the career public service" does not apply to elected officials

Determining whether the California Business Council can be assessed attorney fees under section 1021.5 as an " ‘opposing part[y]’ within the meaning of that statute"

Holding that the Court had jurisdiction to review whether Georgia House of Representatives deprived one of its members of his constitutional rights when it refused to seat him on account of statements he had made criticizing the conduct of the war in Vietnam

In section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legislature has enjoined upon the attorney-general the duty of bringing actions for the forfeiture of corporate franchises whenever he has reason to believe that they are unlawfully held or exercised.