Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization
19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) Cited 640 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”
Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn
11 Cal.3d 28 (Cal. 1974) Cited 483 timesHolding that the standard applies equally to review of local and statewide agencies
DeVita v. County of Napa
9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995) Cited 200 times 7 Legal AnalysesDescribing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"
Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore
18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976) Cited 256 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that state law, which required any ordinance changing zoning or imposing specified land use restrictions can be enacted only after noticed hearing before the city's planning commission and legislative body, does not apply to initiative enacting same type of ordinance
Coalition v. City of Upland
3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) Cited 79 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that we must resolve doubts about the initiative power in its favor and "narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power"
Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside
7 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 1994) Cited 153 timesDetermining that California's conflict of interest statute did not preclude a wage and hours suit by county attorneys against their public employer
McDermott v. Ampersand Pub
593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 71 timesUpholding denial of injunctive relief and stating that "[m]ost of the delay in this case has resulted from the time taken by the litigation process itself, and the Regional Director cannot be faulted for that. But at least some of the delay was caused by the Regional Director's deferred petition for preliminary injunctive relief."
Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre
25 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. 2001) Cited 65 times 5 Legal AnalysesImposing statutory prerequisites on voter-sponsored initiatives may be an impermissible burden on the electors' constitutional power to legislate by initiative
American Coatings Association, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality District
54 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2012) Cited 44 timesContrasting 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
Rossi v. Brown
9 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 1995) Cited 73 timesHolding that initiative provisions do not except measures imposing a tax from the initiative power
Section 5
Cal. Const. art. XI § 5 Cited 241 timesAllowing "city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs . . . ."
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. XI § 3 Cited 93 times(a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter
Section 32603 - Employer Unfair Practices Under MMBA
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32603 Cited 9 timesIt 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
Section 32410 - Request for Reconsideration
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32410(a) Any party to a decision of the Board itself may, because of extraordinary circumstances, file a request to reconsider the decision within 20 days following the date of service of the decision. The request for reconsideration shall be filed with the Board itself in the headquarters office and shall state with specificity the grounds claimed and, where applicable, shall specify the page of the record relied on. Service and proof of service of the request pursuant to Section 32140 are required.
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,153 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
Rule 8.78 - Electronic service
Cal. R. 8.78(a) Authorization for electronic service; exceptions (1) A document may be electronically served under these rules: (A) If electronic service is provided for by law or court order; or (B) If the recipient agrees to accept electronic services as provided by these rules and the document is otherwise authorized to be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission. (2) A party indicates that the party agrees to accept electronic service by: (A) Serving a notice on all parties that