§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

Respondent, City of Morgan Hill, Opening Brief on the Merits

30 Cited authorities

  1. Haraguchi v. Superior Court

    43 Cal.4th 706 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 442 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reiterating it is "an actual likelihood of unfair treatment, not a subjective perception of impropriety" that can warrant the significant step of recusal

  2. SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co.

    121 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 239 times
    Explaining that the doctrine of implied findings " directs the appellate court to presume that the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the judgment so long as substantial evidence supports those findings and applies unless the omissions and ambiguities in the statement of decision are brought to the attention of the superior court in a timely manner"

  3. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 469 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances

  4. 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

  5. Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino

    11 Cal.4th 220 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 229 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing statewide right to initiative

  6. 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

  7. 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"

  8. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura

    10 Cal.3d 110 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that no actual controversy existed between property owner and county where general plan showed streets running through owner's property because plan could not be read to constitute "present concrete indication that the county either intends to use [the owner's] property for the proposed streets or that it intends to acquire the property by condemnation"

  9. 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

  10. Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court

    45 Cal.3d 491 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 96 times
    Noting that a municipal affair is generally one that does not "affect persons outside of the municipality"

  11. Section 65860 - Zoning ordinances consistent with general plan

    Cal. Gov. Code § 65860   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying where "the zoning ordinance shall be amended ... so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended"

  12. Section 9

    Cal. Const. art. II § 9   Cited 70 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. Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.212   Cited 28 times

    (a)Time to file (1) An appellant must serve and file its opening brief within: (A) 40 days after the record-or the reporter's transcript, after a rule 8.124 election-is filed in the reviewing court; or (B) 70 days after the filing of a rule 8.124 election, if the appeal proceeds without a reporter's transcript. (2) A respondent must serve and file its brief within 30 days after the appellant files its opening brief. (3) An appellant must serve and file its reply brief, if any, within 20 days after