§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Real Party in Interest, Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, Answer Brief on the Merits

32 Cited authorities

  1. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

    55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 668 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."

  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. Coalition v. City of Upland

    3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  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. Yost v. Thomas

    36 Cal.3d 561 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that a city councils adoption of a specific plan, because of its similarity to adoption or amendment of a general plan or rezoning, was a legislative act and thus subject to referendum

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo

    111 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 39 times
    Holding a city's decision to award a waste management franchise to a new provider was subject to referendum and stating, "[t]he issuance of a franchise involves the setting, not the implementation, of public policy . . . `[t]he rule is firmly established that the granting of a franchise by a city or county is a legislative act'"

  10. Assembly v. Deukmejian

    30 Cal.3d 638 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 76 times
    In Assembly of the State of California v. Deukmejian, 639 P.2d 939 (Cal. 1982), the state legislature had passed reapportionment statutes revising the state's congressional, senate, and assembly districts, which the governor had signed into law.

  11. Section 1

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

  12. 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

  13. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. II § 11   Cited 63 times

    (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter. (b) A city or county initiative measure shall not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage

  14. Section 9237 - Suspension and reconsideration of ordinance

    Cal. Elec. Code § 9237   Cited 15 times

    If a petition protesting the adoption of an ordinance, and circulated by a person who meets the requirements of Section 102, is submitted to the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours, as posted, within 30 days of the date the adopted ordinance is attested by the city clerk or secretary to the legislative body, and is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city according to the county elections official's last official

  15. Rule 3.1702 - Claiming attorney's fees

    Cal. R. 3.1702   Cited 327 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

  16. 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)