§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Real Party in Interest, Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, Answer to Petition for Review

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg

    5 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 116, 123, 284 Cal. Rptr. 318, "substantial evidence of [a defendant's] financial condition" is required to award a plaintiff punitive damages pursuant to the CUTSA

  3. Debottari v. City Council

    171 Cal.App.3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 37 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that city council had mandatory duty to place referendum on ballot and citing other California cases holding that city registrar, county clerk, county board of supervisors, and the secretary of state similarly had mandatory duties

  4. Midway Orchards v. County of Butte

    220 Cal.App.3d 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 30 times

    Docket Nos. C004316, C003276. May 21, 1990. [Opinion certified for partial publication.] Appeal from Superior Court of Butte County, Nos. 78957 and 89095, William R. Patrick, Roger G. Gilbert and Loyd H. Mulkey, Jr., Judges. COUNSEL Rutan Tucker, Leonard A. Hampel, Philip D. Kohn and Karen Bush for Plaintiff and Appellant in No. C004316 and for Defendants and Appellants in No. C003276. Susan Roff, County Counsel, Remy Thomas, Michael H. Remy, James G. Moose and Robert G. Boehm, City Attorney, for

  5. Chandis Securities Co. v. City of Dana Point

    52 Cal.App.4th 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 18 times
    In Chandis, the Dana Point electorate, in two referendums, failed to approve the adoption of a specific plan and a general plan amendment relating to plaintiff's property.

  6. City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens

    25 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Following deBottari

  7. Merritt v. City of Pleasanton

    89 Cal.App.4th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    A089834 Filed May 11, 2001; Pub. order June 7, 2001 Appeal from the Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 813908-7, Honorable Henry Needham. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton, David P. Lanferman; Morrison Foerster and Michael H. Zischke for Plaintiffs and Appellants Michael H. Roush, City Attorney, Tamara S. Galanter, Shute, Mihaly Weinberger for Respondent. STEIN, J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered after the superior court denied a petition for writ of mandate, filed by appellants, by

  8. 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

  9. 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)