Counties claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Counties claim in California

10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (11)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Hayward v. Trustees of the California State Universitygreen
calctapp · 2015 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023While the project may increase demand for public services in Butte County, that in itself “is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate.” (City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“The need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”].)6 6 In a footnote—one of 90 substantive footnotes in their opening brief—the Counties discuss existing problems in the project area involving illegal dumping, vandalism, and other issues.

2023While the project may increase demand for public services in Butte County, that in itself “is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate.” (City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“The need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”].)6 6 In a footnote—one of 90 substantive footnotes in their opening brief—the Counties discuss existing problems in the project area involving illegal dumping, vandalism, and other issues.

22
Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City of Riversidegreen
calctapp5d · 2018 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023(Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1152 [speculation about environmental impacts is insufficient].) Third, the Counties claim DWR offered conflicting comments about a future “biological opinion” that could affect SWP operations.

2023(Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1152 [speculation about environmental impacts is insufficient].) Third, the Counties claim DWR offered conflicting comments about a future “biological opinion” that could affect SWP operations.

22
First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commissiongreen
scotus · 1946 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

22
Arizona v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 2012 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

22
People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suhgreen
calctapp5d · 2019 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Co. v. 2 Petitioner points out that Senate Bill No. 423 does not address the portion of the executive order concerning in-person public meetings required by the Voter’s Choice Act (Stats. 2016, ch. 832, §§1-9) because the counties to which this requirement applies have already finalized election plans, though they will continue to hold additional workshops and other forms of outreach. 4 Suh (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 253, 257 (People ex rel.

11
People v. Hochanadelgreen
calctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Because the MMP’s identification card program has no impact on the protections provided by the CUA, we reject Counties’ claim that those provisions are invalidated by article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.” (San Diego NORML, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 831 ; accord, People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011-1014 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ] [holding that § 11362.775 of the MMP, concerning collectives or cooperatives, does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the CUA].) We agree with the parties that the Court of Appeal below erred in concluding

2010Because the MMP’s identification card program has no impact on the protections provided by the CUA, we reject Counties’ claim that those provisions are invalidated by article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.” (San Diego NORML, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 831 ; accord, People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011-1014 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ] [holding that § 11362.775 of the MMP, concerning collectives or cooperatives, does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the CUA].) We agree with the parties that the Court of Appeal below erred in concluding

11
People v. McDonaldgreen
cal · 1984 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372-373 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ]; Wilson v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 250, 254-256 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Counties’ challenge to Dr. Curry’s testimony is that he “theorized” and “hypothesized” about the factors that he believed affected the level of the flood.

2002(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372-373 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ]; Wilson v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 250, 254-256 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Counties’ challenge to Dr. Curry’s testimony is that he “theorized” and “hypothesized” about the factors that he believed affected the level of the flood.

11
Wilson v. Phillipsgreen
calctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372-373 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ]; Wilson v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 250, 254-256 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Counties’ challenge to Dr. Curry’s testimony is that he “theorized” and “hypothesized” about the factors that he believed affected the level of the flood.

2002(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372-373 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ]; Wilson v. Phillips (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 250, 254-256 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Counties’ challenge to Dr. Curry’s testimony is that he “theorized” and “hypothesized” about the factors that he believed affected the level of the flood.

11
Valdez v. City of Los Angelesgreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996(Miller v. Glass (1955) 44 Cal.2d 359, 360 [ 282 P.2d 501 ].)” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1055 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) Because the time for a demurrer had passed by the time the Counties’ motion was filed, we treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

1996(Miller v. Glass (1955) 44 Cal.2d 359, 360 [ 282 P.2d 501 ].)” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1055 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) Because the time for a demurrer had passed by the time the Counties’ motion was filed, we treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

11
Miller v. Glassgreen
cal · 1955 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996(Miller v. Glass (1955) 44 Cal.2d 359, 360 [ 282 P.2d 501 ].)” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1055 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) Because the time for a demurrer had passed by the time the Counties’ motion was filed, we treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

1996(Miller v. Glass (1955) 44 Cal.2d 359, 360 [ 282 P.2d 501 ].)” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1055 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) Because the time for a demurrer had passed by the time the Counties’ motion was filed, we treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

11
People v. $20,000 United States Currencygreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996(People v. $20,000 U.S. Currency (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 682, 691 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) “Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we treat the properly pleaded allegations of [the Airlines’] complaint as true, and also consider those matters subject to judicial notice.

1996(People v. $20,000 U.S. Currency (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 682, 691 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) “Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we treat the properly pleaded allegations of [the Airlines’] complaint as true, and also consider those matters subject to judicial notice.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno green
cal · 2018
2 sentences

2023An EIR, for example, may not be set aside simply because an opposite factual finding “ ‘ “would have been equally or more reasonable,” for, on factual questions, our task is “not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” ’ ” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 512 .) Because we find Voices for Rural Living inapposite for these reasons, we reject the Counties’ reliance on it.5 5 Because we reject the Counties’ challenge to DWR’s finding that “any discussion of potential changes to operations of the Oroville Facilities necessitated by climate change would be spec

2023An EIR, for example, may not be set aside simply because an opposite factual finding “ ‘ “would have been equally or more reasonable,” for, on factual questions, our task is “not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” ’ ” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 512 .) Because we find Voices for Rural Living inapposite for these reasons, we reject the Counties’ reliance on it.5 5 Because we reject the Counties’ challenge to DWR’s finding that “any discussion of potential changes to operations of the Oroville Facilities necessitated by climate change would be spec

22023–2023
Kansas v. Garcia green
scotus · 2020
2 sentences

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

2022(Kansas v. Garcia (2020) 589 U.S. __ , __ [ 140 S.Ct. 791, 804 ]; see First Iowa, supra, 328 U.S. at p. 171 [the FPA, when “read in the light of its long and colorful legislative history, . . . discloses both a vigorous determination of Congress to make progress with the development of . . . water power . . . 21 COUNTY OF BUTTE v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. and a determination to avoid unconstitutional invasion of the jurisdiction of the states”].) This does not appear to be “an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself,” which is “the basic premise

22022–2022
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML green
calctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2010Because the MMP’s identification card program has no impact on the protections provided by the CUA, we reject Counties’ claim that those provisions are invalidated by article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.” (San Diego NORML, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 831 ; accord, People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011-1014 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ] [holding that § 11362.775 of the MMP, concerning collectives or cooperatives, does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the CUA].) We agree with the parties that the Court of Appeal below erred in concluding

2009Because the MMP[A]’s identification card program has no impact on the protections provided by the CUA, we reject Counties’ claim that those provisions are invalidated by article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution.” (County of San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 831 .) 3 As with the identification card provisions of the MMPA addressed in County of San Diego , section 11362.775, relating to cooperatives and collectives, did not constitute an amendment of the CUA as it was not intended to, and did not, alter the rights provided by the CUA.

22009–2010
San Juan County, Utah v. United States green
ca10 · 2007
1 sentence

2023(San Juan County v. United States (10th Cir. 2007) 503 F.3d 1163, 1204 .) Appellants are thus 10 adequately represented in the litigation with the State defendants, as the trial court correctly concluded.

12023–2023

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 16u.s.c.791a (4) USC § 16u.s.c.817 (4) USC § 42u.s.c.4321 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 10 (1996–2023) FL 2 (1998–2015) MI 2 (2007–2007) GA 2 (2017–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check