policy underlying rule in California

1990However, we also held that ‘Whether any particular rule of criminal practice should be applied . . . depends upon consideration of the relationship of the policy underlying the rule to the proceeding.’” (11 Cal.3d at p.227, quoting People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 681-682 .) The court explained it had “applied this balancing test in In re Martinez (1970) 1 Cal.3d 641 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 463 P.2d 734 ], in considering the *270 nature of an administrative proceeding—a parole revocation by the Adult Authority.

1981(People v. Victor, 62 Cal.2d 280, 288-289 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 398 P.2d 391 ].) “Whether any particular rule of criminal practice should be applied in a narcotic addict commitment proceeding depends upon consideration of the relationship of the policy underlying the rule to the proceeding.” (People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 681 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 446 P.2d 800 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Thomas, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 641, fn. 8 .) Consideration of physical aspects of confinement for narcotics rehabilitation is an approach used by the courts to determine the effect of such

2025The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.’ ” (Loeber, at p. 569, quoting Save the Plastic Bag, at p. 170, fn. 5; see Save the Plastic Bag, at p. 168 [“Absent compelling policy reasons to the contrary, it would seem that corporate entities should be as free as natural persons to litigate in the public interest.”], citing Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 145 (Green).) B.

2024The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.’ ” (Ibid.; see Green, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 145 .) On appeal from a petition for writ of mandate, we apply the same standard of review as the trial court and review the local agency’s (here, the district’s) action de novo.

2000The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature. ( Green v. Obledo, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 145 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 624 P.2d 256 ; see also Nowlin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1538 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) As this court explained in McDonald v. Stockton Met.

2000The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature. ( Green v. Obledo, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 145 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 624 P.2d 256 ; see also Nowlin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1538 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 .) As this court explained in McDonald v. Stockton Met.

2014The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature. [Citations.]” (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 *874 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1237 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 ], disapproved in part on other grounds in Save the Plastic.

2004The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature. [Citations.] [][]... [T]he propriety of a citizen’s suit requires a judicial balancing of interests, and the interest of a citizen may be considered sufficient when the public duty is sharp and the public need weighty. [Citation.]” (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1236-1237 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 ].) Recognition of citizen standing is appropriate in the instant case.

2025The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.’ ” (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 170, fn. 5 .) Thus, “where the claim of ‘citizen’ or ‘public interest’ standing is driven by personal objectives rather than ‘broader public concerns,’ a court may find the litigant to lack such standing.” (SJJC Aviation Services, LLC v. City of San Jose (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1057 .) Spencer never raised public interest standing in the trial court, and therefore it cannot be considered for the fir

2024The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.’” (Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 170, fn. 5 .) Appellants lack public interest standing.

2017In Greenfield, supra , 32 Cal.2d at page 35 , 194 P.2d 1 , the California Supreme Court stated: "[I]n rare circumstances a judgment may not be res judicata, when proper consideration is given to the policy underlying the doctrine, and there are rare instances in which it is not applied.

2017In Greenfield, supra , 32 Cal.2d at page 35 , 194 P.2d 1 , the California Supreme Court stated: "[I]n rare circumstances a judgment may not be res judicata, when proper consideration is given to the policy underlying the doctrine, and there are rare instances in which it is not applied.

2017(Save the Plastic Bag, supra, at p. 169 .) For example, as the Supreme Court in Save the Plastic Bag pointed out, it would be improper for a petitioner—whether corporation or individual—to “attempt to use CEQA to impose regulatory burdens on a business 17 competitor, with no demonstrable concern for protecting the environment.” (Ibid.; see Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com., supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 799 [petitioner’s knowledge of events underlying her lawsuit showed that her interests were those of a board member, not a neutral citizen].) Citing Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th 155 and

2013The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.”15 (Ibid.; accord Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 799-801 [member of a committee of an administrative board could not pursue mandate petition against the committee].) Here, plaintiff does not have a beneficial interest in a writ of mandate because as a matter of law, defendants’ alleged breach of their mandatory duty did not proximately cause plaintiff’s alleged damages.16 The complaint alleges, however, that plaintiff is a 15 Under certain circumstances, the tr

2017In such cases it will not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy." The California Supreme Court, in Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791 , 794, 796, 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ( Slater ), addressed the issue whether enactment of legislation following the original judgment was sufficient ground to deny according the judgment res judicata effect.

2017In such cases it will not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy." The California Supreme Court, in Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791 , 794, 796, 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ( Slater ), addressed the issue whether enactment of legislation following the original judgment was sufficient ground to deny according the judgment res judicata effect.

1993As stated by the Pena court: “The public policy considerations expressed in [Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 ( 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 )] to bar a civil action on a citizen’s grievance are equally applicable to a criminal action based on the contents of such a complaint: [^] ‘The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. . . . [f] . . . [I]t is distressing and demoralizing for police officers to be subjected to false accusations ... but that may be one of th

1993As stated by the Pena court: “The public policy considerations expressed in [Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 ( 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 )] to bar a civil action on a citizen’s grievance are equally applicable to a criminal action based on the contents of such a complaint: [^] ‘The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. . . . [f] . . . [I]t is distressing and demoralizing for police officers to be subjected to false accusations ... but that may be one of th

1981(People v. Victor, 62 Cal.2d 280, 288-289 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 398 P.2d 391 ].) “Whether any particular rule of criminal practice should be applied in a narcotic addict commitment proceeding depends upon consideration of the relationship of the policy underlying the rule to the proceeding.” (People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 681 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 446 P.2d 800 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Thomas, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 641, fn. 8 .) Consideration of physical aspects of confinement for narcotics rehabilitation is an approach used by the courts to determine the effect of such

1981(People v. Victor, 62 Cal.2d 280, 288-289 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 398 P.2d 391 ].) “Whether any particular rule of criminal practice should be applied in a narcotic addict commitment proceeding depends upon consideration of the relationship of the policy underlying the rule to the proceeding.” (People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 681 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 446 P.2d 800 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Thomas, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 641, fn. 8 .) Consideration of physical aspects of confinement for narcotics rehabilitation is an approach used by the courts to determine the effect of such

1976(See also Thompson v. Package Machinery Co. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 188, 192-193 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 281 ].) “Furthermore, the policy underlying the doctrine of strict liability compels the conclusion that recovery should not be limited to cases involving latent defects. ‘The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.’ (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57, 63 .) Requiring the defec

1976(See also Thompson v. Package Machinery Co. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 188, 192-193 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 281 ].) “Furthermore, the policy underlying the doctrine of strict liability compels the conclusion that recovery should not be limited to cases involving latent defects. ‘The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.’ (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57, 63 .) Requiring the defec

1970(Cf. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13-14 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 ].)” (69 Cal.2d at pp. 681-682.) In determining the applicability of the Fourth Amendment and the Dorado-Miranda exclusionary rules to Adult Authority proceedings we examine both the policies underlying the rules and the purposes and nature of the proceeding. 1.

1970(Cf. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13-14 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 ].)” (69 Cal.2d at pp. 681-682.) In determining the applicability of the Fourth Amendment and the Dorado-Miranda exclusionary rules to Adult Authority proceedings we examine both the policies underlying the rules and the purposes and nature of the proceeding. 1.

2024(Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890 ; City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1159 ; Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt.

2023(See City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1159 [common law cause of action for wrongful discharge cannot be broader than the statute on which it depends]; accord Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt.

2008Oil Co. v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 815, 825 , 279 P.2d 35 , fn. omitted [trial court did not err in trying cross-complaint with prohibition proceeding].) As the California Supreme Court long ago recognized—albeit in a case where section 1094.5 was found inapplicable— "aside from statutory provisions, such a power to remand also exists under the inherent powers of the court." ( Keeler v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 600 , 297 P.2d 967 .) "There is no question but that, consistent with proper regulations, a court has inherent power to control the course of litigation before it.

2008Oil Co. v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 815, 825 , 279 P.2d 35 , fn. omitted [trial court did not err in trying cross-complaint with prohibition proceeding].) As the California Supreme Court long ago recognized—albeit in a case where section 1094.5 was found inapplicable— "aside from statutory provisions, such a power to remand also exists under the inherent powers of the court." ( Keeler v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 600 , 297 P.2d 967 .) "There is no question but that, consistent with proper regulations, a court has inherent power to control the course of litigation before it.

1993As stated by the Pena court: “The public policy considerations expressed in [Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 ( 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 )] to bar a civil action on a citizen’s grievance are equally applicable to a criminal action based on the contents of such a complaint: [^] ‘The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. . . . [f] . . . [I]t is distressing and demoralizing for police officers to be subjected to false accusations ... but that may be one of th

1993As stated by the Pena court: “The public policy considerations expressed in [Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 ( 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 )] to bar a civil action on a citizen’s grievance are equally applicable to a criminal action based on the contents of such a complaint: [^] ‘The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. . . . [f] . . . [I]t is distressing and demoralizing for police officers to be subjected to false accusations ... but that may be one of th

2017The policy underlying the exception may be outweighed by competing considerations of a more urgent nature.’ ” (Save the Plastic Bag, supra, at p. 170, fn. 5 ; see also Department of Consumer Affairs v. Superior Court (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 256, 262 [rejecting application of public interest standing where car buyers lacked “any beneficial interest in an actual controversy”].) More specifically, where the claim of “citizen” or “public interest” standing is driven by personal objectives rather than “broader public concerns,” a court may find the litigant to lack such standing.

2017(Save the Plastic Bag, supra, at p. 169 .) For example, as the Supreme Court in Save the Plastic Bag pointed out, it would be improper for a petitioner—whether corporation or individual—to “attempt to use CEQA to impose regulatory burdens on a business 17 competitor, with no demonstrable concern for protecting the environment.” (Ibid.; see Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com., supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 799 [petitioner’s knowledge of events underlying her lawsuit showed that her interests were those of a board member, not a neutral citizen].) Citing Save the Plastic Bag, supra, 52 Cal.4th 155 and