§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Real Party in Interest, Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

9 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. 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

  3. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com.

    17 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 183 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although developer had made improvements necessary for subdivision, it had no vested right since it had not obtained a building permit

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey

    12 Cal.App.5th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Bushey, the city amended its general plan to change the land use designation for a parcel of property owned by River Park from industrial to commercial.

  8. Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning

    243 Cal.App.2d 255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    In Spindler, supra, 53 Cal.Rptr. at 11, the court, in quoting from the earlier case of Anderson v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.2d 79, 89-90, 40 Cal.Rptr. 41 (1964), held that a developer who had obtained a grading permit pursuant to preparation of his property for construction of a development project and expended substantial sums thereon "... did not acquire a vested right, as against future zoning, merely by purchasing the property in reliance on the existing zoning and thereafter making certain endeavors to develop it for a specified use."

  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)