§Why CasetextPricing

MORGAN HILL, CITY OF v. BUSHEY

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

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.)

    59 Cal.4th 1029 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 107 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting we will find an implied repeal only where there is no way to reconcile the two provisions

  3. 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

  4. Rossi v. Brown

    9 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that initiative provisions do not except measures imposing a tax from the initiative power

  5. American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Eu

    36 Cal.3d 687 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that a state initiative requiring the legislature to enact a resolution which did not itself change California law exceeded scope of the initiative power under the California Constitution

  6. 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.

  7. Rubalcava v. Martinez

    158 Cal.App.4th 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    No. B199993. December 27, 2007. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS107624, David P. Yaffee, Judge. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Valerie L. Flores and Harit U. Trivedi, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Appellants. Davis, Cowell Bowe, Richard G. McCracken, Andrew Kahn and Paul More for Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Bell, McAndrews Hiltachk, Thomas W. Hiltachk, Brian T Hildreth and Paul T. Gough for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION MANELLA, J. Respondents sought

  8. 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

  9. Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz

    133 Cal.App.3d 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Resource Defense Fund, plaintiffs brought an action for mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) claiming the approval which the County of Santa Cruz had given to certain minor land divisions was invalid because the county had no valid general plan, and the subdivision could not conform to a nonexistent plan.

  10. County of Sacramento v. Superior Court

    137 Cal.App.3d 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    Docket No. 21618. October 21, 1982. COUNSEL L.B. Elam, County Counsel, and Franklin M. Garcia, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Arthur Wells, Jr., for Real Party in Interest. OPINION PUGLIA, P.J. Petitioners Sacramento County and its sheriff are defendants in an action pending in the respondent superior court. In this writ proceeding, they seek mandate to secure a protective order limiting discovery and to vacate a trial court stay of enforcement of an ordinance

  11. 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