§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Amicus Curiae Brief of The League of California Cities

14 Cited authorities

  1. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 284 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to make a timely comment does not excuse the lead agency from providing substantial evidence to fulfill its duty to identify and discuss project alternatives

  2. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing 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"

  3. Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore

    18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 256 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  4. Legislature v. Eu

    54 Cal.3d 492 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 166 times
    Holding as grammatically severable “or serving in” from “elected to or serving in the Legislature on or after November 1, 1990”

  5. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek

    52 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 123 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 65860, subd. preempts a zoning ordinance inconsistent with the general plan

  6. Travis v. County of Santa Cruz

    33 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 80 times
    Holding a facial challenge to constitutionality of zoning ordinance simultaneously with constitutional challenge to its application in a particular case does not impact the application of the time limitation set forth in Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(E).

  7. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. City of San Jose

    61 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 43 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Upholding San Jose's inclusionary housing ordinance as a permissible police power regulation

  8. Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

    2 Cal.5th 141 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses

    S212800 12-15-2016 ORANGE CITIZENS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; Milan REI IV LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest. Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Milan REI IV LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. Daniel P. Selmi ; Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Rachel B. Hooper, San Francisco, Robert S. Perlmutter and Susannah T. French, San Francisco, for Petitioners and for Plaintiffs and Appellants

  9. Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors

    8 Cal.4th 765 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 61 times

    Docket No. S034268. November 23, 1994. Appeal from Superior Court of Trinity County, No. 92CV021, Steven E. Jahr, Judge. Judge of the Shasta Superior Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. COUNSEL Alfred S. Wilkins for Plaintiff and Appellant. John W. Anderson, County Counsel, David L. Cross, District Attorney, and W. James Wood, Deputy District Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Lita O'Neill Blatner, County Counsel (Tulare), Kathleen Bales-Lange, Deputy

  10. Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court

    25 Cal.3d 33 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that a complete ban on all contributions by lobbyists was not closely drawn under Buckley

  11. Section 9

    Cal. Const. art. II § 9   Cited 71 times

    (a) The referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses of the State. (b) A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State, within 90 days after the enactment date of the statute, a petition certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent of the votes for all candidates

  12. 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