§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Real Party in Interest, River Park Hospitality, Supplemental Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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'"

  2. 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.

  3. Lafayette v. City of Lafayette

    20 Cal.App.5th 657 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Following City of Morgan Hill ’s reasoning

  4. 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

  5. Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette

    239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    A154168 10-23-2018 SAVE LAFAYETTE TREES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Defendant and Respondent; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER, Stephan C. Volker, Alexis E. Krieg, Stephanie L. Clarke, Jamey M.B. Volker, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP, Malathy Subramanian, Sarah E. Owsowitz, for Defendant and Respondent. MILLER STARR REGALIA, George B. Speir, Arthur F. Coon, for Real Party

  6. Geiger v. Board of Supervisors

    48 Cal.2d 832 (Cal. 1957)   Cited 53 times
    In Geiger, supra, 48 Cal.2d 832, our court was faced with the question whether a county board of supervisors had acted lawfully in refusing to hold a referendum election on a local tax ordinance when a properly certified petition demanding such a referendum had been timely filed with the county prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

  7. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 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